General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKick if you agree with this assessment about the influence of religion on people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nine
(1,741 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Seems that a lot of people who do, do though.
"Gods"? Do many Christians believe in more than one God? That is who's being bashed here, right?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You gotta be more subtle with your logical fallacies. Explore religious apologetics for some great examples.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
stevil
(1,537 posts)No matter what they are can still help people.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)Please explain.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)Is that there are some religious people that are good people, care about being decent folk. The Onion is satire but sometimes satirizes satire. I am agnostic btw.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)The OP makes no mention of "good" or deeds, simply the issue of accepting ignorance.
The connection is... ?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)and still carry on a otherwise mostly normal life, including helping others.
At to illustrate how twisted it really is, those acts of humanity become part of the brainwashing. "Help at the food kitchen because God will judge you in heaven."
No, help at the food kitchen (or anything else you do to help society) because it it the right thing to do and we are a better people as a result.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)if you walk to school or carry your lunch?
People for thousands of years have been doing nice things for other people and have been completely ignorant of many things that we know now.
It is the complacency that is at issue. And to get even more specific, when a religious entity KILLS scientists for contradicting thier fairy beliefs--yes history is full of examples--then it's a problem. imho.
Seeking Serenity
(2,845 posts)Off topic, but nice Bozo reference.
"Do you help your mom out around the house? How does she get back in?"
Oh, the childhood memories. 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ways of illustrating it than using "The Onion". Besides, no one here has said otherwise. So we have to guess what his point is and it appears to me that his point (if we guess correctly) is a strawman.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Which is bullshit, of course. I wonder about these people who seem to need the threat of Hell in order to behave in a civilized manner.
Nine
(1,741 posts)It's basically calling a huge segment of the population "brainwashed idiots," just like in the Onion article, and making unjustified broad brush statements about them. Meanwhile many of these "brainwashed idiots" are out there doing good, progressive work. People say they don't like religious evangelism but I see a hell of a lot more atheist evangelism around here. Why does the OP and others like him/her care so much whether people affiliate themselves with a religion? Mind your own business. If religion doesn't work for you, that's your choice. Let other people make their own choices without constant harassment.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why do we care about religion? It's everywhere. It's on our money, in the pledge of allegiance, etc. Our tax money goes to religions whether we like it or not. If there is such a thing as "atheist evangelism" it pales in the face of religious evangelism. Most people that you would call atheists dont acknowledge that they are such. They just dont believe. Not believing in the Christian god is not a religion, not a group, no meetings, no tv shows. People that dont believe in the Christian god speak out because they are inundated with religion.
Nine
(1,741 posts)"Rhett o rick's problem is that he/she is satisfied with not understanding things."
Or an organization you affiliate yourself with?...
"What worries me about the Progressive movement is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding."
Are you honestly going to tell me that's not an insult? It IS basically calling religious people brainwashed idiots. If you don't like the infiltration of religion into our government or daily lives, go fight the infiltration of religion into our government and daily lives. Don't go around gratuitously insulting people who might otherwise be on the same side just because it's easier and more fun than actually doing some real work.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)That's what I got out of this, too.
And Dawkins? He's supposed to help me to enlightenment?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Dawkins helps me understand my place and my potential in the universe from a biological standpoint. For which I am grateful. (He's not the only source, but a helpful one.
Neil deGrasse Tyson did a better job of helping me find what you might describe as 'enlightenment' at a more fundamental level:
Hear that note in his voice, when he says "but I feel big"?
Home. Run.
Unca Jim
(559 posts)by far more interesting and relevant.
I am a big believer in the idea that I do not get to define others' beliefs for them or tell them what those beliefs mean for them.
That's all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Pointing out confirmation bias, and exposing a contrasting example, does not define something for another person.
That's mostly what Dawkins does. Attacks confirmation bias.
And he does it, because these beliefs based on such logical error, impact all of us. What an individual believes for themselves is unimportant to me, in a danger to myself sort of way. What an individual believes that informs their vote, is another matter entirely.
When someone casts a ballot for a person who, for instance, opposes abortion or contraception coverage, they just made their faith that informed that dogma, my business to evaluate and comment on.
Unca Jim
(559 posts)How do you know what their motivations are?
People oppose abortion who are not religious. Libertarians hate forced contraceptive coverage.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There just ain't enough fuckin' bootstraps to go around.
So, I'm not sure how that helps your argument. (I highly doubt Dawkins thinks much of libertarian ideology either.)
Unca Jim
(559 posts)I cannot tell others what they believe or ascribe motivations to them. I object to that happening. No matter who does it and even if I agree with them.
There are many civil libertarians out there who don't get into the bootstraps.
Dawkins is ascribing motive and belief to someone besides himself, with no evidence besides his fear and dislike.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)religious proselytizing is anathema to me--and many others.
Unca Jim
(559 posts)I just object to the OPs projection onto others.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I am a big believer in the idea that I do not get to define others' beliefs for them or tell them what those beliefs mean for them.
I was merely agreeing with you.
Unca Jim
(559 posts)Sorry, I get what you were referencing, now.
Nice to be agreed with... 
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Contrary to the previous post's unsupported implication, I would also look on the religiously deluded much more kindly if they had ever in any of their histories ever actually done all they could do to help people prosper in the hell they've done so much to create.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)peoples lives miserable. I do not think much of religion, at all. I find religions to be extremely divisive.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)opposing precepts as normal, i.e cognitive dissonance. Asimov and Kubrick tried to illustrate the inevitable results of this schizophrenic pathology in 2001: A Space Odyssey through the HAL 9000.
Every time I encounter the religiously deluded in any debate, this is the barrier I come up against, and the only counter they can ever come up with is some variation of "so, you think 7/8 of the people are wrong/deluded?". Argumentum ad populum.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Not Asimov.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)recent studies on brain function and unshakable, sometimes delusional, belief structures. ... despite great evidence to the contrary, the unshakable beliefs persist, and with extreme rationalizations.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)What about the people that are not exposed to this magical being paradigm? I've never seen any indications that people that have not been exposed to it develop it on their own. Did I miss it?
Or contrariwise, what about those of us for whom it never made any sense, even as little kids, when we were exposed to it?
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)exposed to it?" That, I think, gets back to innate brain development, for example, some are predisposed to such a belief systems. ... others, it just rolls off their backs. It's late here, I'll see if I can find the study tomorrow.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
uppityperson
(115,684 posts)Some, not all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)uppityperson
(115,684 posts)disliking what some organized religions do into bashing them all. And now that I have replied to you, it shows hosts should leave it open as we are "having fun" with it? Pshaw.
Bigotry and broadbrushing is wrong. Slam those who do seek to limit, but not as a whole. Same with the "men are" and/or "women are" because those also are wayyyy to broad and demean all who may be in that group to being only a member of that group, not individuals.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)to what people might actually gain from their religious practice
I'm not a practitioner of Buddhism but I've found a number of Buddhist texts very informative. I'm not a practitioner of Hinduism but I learned something from reading Gandhi's commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita. I'm not a practitioner of Judaism but I found portions of the Midrash Rabbah very thought-provoking. I'm not a practitioner of Taoism but I think I've learned something from Taoist texts as well ...
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)he says that his understanding of Buddhism, is that it is more of a "way of life" than a dogmatic religion, but that he doesn't really know enough about it, to draw any solid conclusions.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)Dawkins is a privileged child of upper-class British colonial upbringing, and he's very sure he's smarter and more perceptive than everyone else
I don't doubt that he's a clever man, but he's not the scientific demi-god some of his devotees think. His actual scientific work is quite limited. He managed to find someone to fund a chair at Oxford on "public understanding of science" with the condition that the funding depended on Dawkins being the first recipient of the chair -- which was rather outside the standard understanding there that the faculty control academic appointments -- and he spent most of his supposedly "scientific" career writing popular expositions, not actually doing science. He's largely remembered for works like "The Selfish Gene," which popularized an idea, that was familiar to geneticists long before Dawkins came along: namely, the idea that natural selection might be regarded as operating on genes. The idea is interesting, and for some purposes it is useful, but it is clearly not the whole story on natural selection, since in the higher animals it is the organism itself as a whole and not the bare gene that survives and reproduces -- or fails to survive/reproduce
There's quite a lot that's important and interesting to say about human affairs from a purely naturalistic PoV but I don't think Dawkins has ever said any of it
His anti-religious specialization consists largely of cheapshots, such as sneering about "fairies in the garden"
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)You also seem to claim that only people who 'do science' can be intelligent.
Pfft.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)I guess it might be because I think he's an a-hole
goldent
(1,582 posts)struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)of making sweeping stereotypical statements about large classes of people.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)You can think that about him if you want. I happen to think he is a shade on the sexist side, myself, in his inability to understand and sympathize with certain aspects of women's issues. I make an honest attempt to minimize ad hominem attacks, however, so as not to damage the legitimacy of my position.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I've been holding off on thinking for a long time, waiting for the day when someone allows us to mentally process things and draw our own individual conclusions.
Oh, but wait...what is going on...these feelings...in my head...
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Make sure you use the power responsibly. I would hate to have to withdraw my "permission".
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And never heard of him until he became venerated by atheist as some kind of great thinker.
So thanks for filling in some of his bio.
So did he create the "flying spaghetti deity" too?
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He is a bit stuffy, isn't he?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Natural selection, at its root, is all about the survival of genes.
Different genes code for different proteins, which ultimately determine every aspect of how an organism looks and functions.
Your dismissal of "a naturalistic PoV" is exactly what Dawkins is talking about in that quote in the OP.
You don't care to understand, you are simply happy with not knowing.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)I did not "dismiss" the naturalistic PoV: I said There's quite a lot that's important and interesting to say about human affairs from a purely naturalistic PoV but noted that I did not hear Dawkins himself saying things I considered important or interesting
Nor will you find me on this site, or anywhere else, saying anything in opposition to teaching the theory of evolution: I was raised by a molecular biologist who specialized in some DNA chemistry, and in my view evolutionary theory offers a breath-takingly beautiful unification of various facts ranging from the earth sciences to biochemistry
I also happen to think Dawkins is so blinded by his ideology that he is unable to conduct genuinely adult conversations with persons who disagree with him on certain philosophical or metaphysical issues. In particular -- and this is actually an important point -- I believe the ability, to do good scientific work, involves the ability, to completely set aside one's philosophical and metaphysical predilictions: science collaboration is possible, between persons with different cultural backgrounds and different philosophical or metaphysical views, simply because one can discuss the phenomena without tangential discussion of any philosophy or metaphysics one might attach to the phenomena. Dawkins' failure, in this regard, is that he presupposes no one could possibly discuss the phenomena in an adult way, without first agreeing on certain philosophical or metaphysical points that Dawkins considers important
trekbiker
(768 posts)what are these "metaphysical points that Dawkins considers important"?
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)does something comparable to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, and for this reason he is particularly dismissive of the late Stephen Jay Gould's notion of non-overlapping magisteria, which to Gould meant:
Gould's point of view allows for scientific collaboration between people with different metaphysical stances: to do science together, they merely need to set aside their metaphysical stances and agree to restrict discussion to the natural phenomena. Dawkins' point of view does not permit such collaborations, because Dawkins insists that various metaphysical matters (such as "existence of God"
are not metaphysical at all but are scientific questions: the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other
The distinction here might be most clearly made by stepping slightly away from science into the field of mathematics and pointing (say) to Srinivasa Ramanujan, a largely self-taught clerk from India who around 1912 sent examples of his work to the famous mathematician Godfrey Harold Hardy at Cambridge. Hardy, who thereupon invited him to England for collaboration, later said "I have never met his equal." Ramanujan's work retains its interest today, as you may verify by checking the linked bit by George Andrews. One rather odd thing about Ramanujan is that he attributed much of his mathematical success to a particular Indian goddess venerated by his family: he said that she gave him many of his results in dreams. In collaborating with Ramanujan, Hardy does not seem to have felt much need to determine whether or not he himself wanted to believe in this particular goddess nor does he seem to have taken much interest in the question of whether Ramanujan could rationally justify his belief in this goddess or whether Ramanujan could be dissuaded from his belief; and, likewise, most subsequent mathematical investigators (like Andrews), who have been stunned by the novelty and beauty of Ramanujan's formulae and who have sought to prove generalizations of the results, typically do not spend much time wondering about Ramanujan's goddess -- because it is actually the mathematics that interests them
In the same way, I think, persons with serious scientific interests are often able to discuss their interests with other scientists who share those interests, without indulging too deeply their own reactions to each others' idiosyncratic personal beliefs -- and, in particular, without comparing each other to appeasers of Hitler
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Because Gould knew damn well that in the real world that we all live in, religion DOES intrude on the territory of science, even though it has no grounds for thinking it can or should. Dawkins knows that too, as does every person paying attention, but unlike Gould, he sees no reason to try to appease religion by pretending otherwise.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Environment plays a role as well, such as with hydrangea flowers of the same genetic variety ranging in color from blue-violet to pink depending on the acidity and aluminum content of the soil and what not.
I just get so tired of the "magical" thinking, that just because we don't fully understand some aspect of the natural world, therefore "God must have done it."
This "god of the gaps" fallacy pisses me off more than anything. At its root really is the understated claim that we should be satisfied with not knowing, instead of digging down further to figure it out.
Science would have never gotten anywhere if we all threw our hands up and gave up before we ever started trying to learn about nature.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't consider ANYONE a demi-god. I consider him a pugilist. Fighting a very important fight, with laser-sharp focus, and for that I am appreciative, because I have a day job, and can't do it myself.
If you want to examine the possible benefits, socially, or culturally, from ideas that are also ingrained in some religions, look to Dawkins' compatriot: Daniel Dennett.
Dawkins is a biologist by trade. He has most certainly 'given some serious thought' to the matter, but it is not his wheelhouse. This is Daniel Dennett's area of expertise. (And others)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)about Dawkins' attitude, if that is the correct word.
I know nothing of his background, his history, etc. and have only seen a bunch of his 'debates/discussions' on YouTube. The first maybe 2 or 3 videos I saw, I found..well, sort of refreshing, to say the least. But after that, while he is quite proficient at presenting his....position, usually against people without any ability to present their own side (and maybe for good reason).... I found him to be utterly condescending, superior and altogether insufferable. It felt to me as if he made his professional life the grinding of the same axe, a professional axe grinder...
I wonder if it made him a happy man.
longship
(40,416 posts)Who rightfully sees his discipline under attack by religious people are actively using legislative fiat and every other method they can to undermine the science behind his discipline.
Nothing makes sense in biology except through the theory of evolution. Nothing!! If one discards evolution, one must also cast off everything that biologists understand about nature.
That's what is at stake. And I do not blame Richard Dawkins for being angry about it. As a matter of fact, I stand by his side.
Have any of you actually seen the polls of how few US citizens agree that evolution happened?
As I said. I stand with Dawkins.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)But Dawkins' actual contributions to evolutionary theory are extremely limited. He was always mainly a popularizer, rather than a serious researcher, and in his later years his anti-religious agitation increasingly occupied his time
The failure of science education in the US is a serious problem, which is part of a larger failure of US education. American high school students, for example, on average read at about fifth-grade level. This is associated with an unwillingness to really commit resources to public education, including keeping class sizes down to twelve or fifteen students, and it may be deliberate in some policy circles. Chomsky has suggested that the post-Sputnik education emphasis produced a generation of literate and informed students, who promptly terrified the establishment by taking educated stands against it -- and having examined some freshman level college materials from the mid-sixties, in comparison to what was used later when I taught at the college level, I suspect there might be something to that
The problem with Dawkins from my PoV is not his desire that students should be literate in such topics as evolution -- a desire I share -- but his single-minded view that religion is to blame for anti-scientific modes of thought. It is not only an ahistorical view: it also completely ignores the actual social forces that oppose quality scientific education
longship
(40,416 posts)Like:
Bill Nye.
James Randi.
Lawrence Krauss.
Stephen Weinberg (physics Nobel laureate).
Kenneth Miller (a devout Catholic evolutionary biologist!)
Robert M. Price ("The Bible Geek", a partisan Conservative Republican atheist with two PhD's on the Bible.)
Eugenie Scott. (Recently retired NCSE director and PhD paleontologist).
Blah, blah, blah.
I could list them for miles. They all agree with Dawkins on these science issues.
And make no mistake, that's what these people see as important.
But, but, but,... Richard Dawkins says mean things!
It's about time somebody did with regards to religion.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)Dawkins (and many others) see this as an important battle
What the fuck is this "this" that you think Dawkins and many nameless others agree is an important battle?
longship
(40,416 posts)"This" is the battle between humanism and religious ideology which has infected and blossomed in one of our two major political parties. It has also dragged culture and the news media far to the right politically, to say nothing about the only other major political party, which has also drifted right.
Dawkins is one of the people who dares to speak truth to power.
And people say that he's mean? Do they say that also about Elizabeth Warren?
Let's not pretend that religion has some special courtesy. That argument just won't fly with today's atheists.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)only to replace it with bigotry and tribalism of atheism/secular humanism. Religion isn't the issue, bigotry and tribalism is the issue. We should stop being the monster we wish to fight.
There's a term for excising groups from a society based on religion or some other defining trait. It's called Ethnic Cleansing. I'm sure you'll protest my use of the term but I don't see how you can characterize religion as an infection and then say you're prepared to live in community where people of religious faith hold equal social, political and legal status.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)labels and claim opposing our rights is 'God's war' and urge their followers to fight that war. Those who say gay families are 'a destructive attack on God's plan' when nations like Uganda are plotting to jail gay people for like are promoting genocide, pogroms against gay people, mass imprisonment, and worse. 44% of Uganda are followers of Francis, the Pope. And he spouts elimination language all over the globe.
Those who excuse, defend or dismiss the hate speech of these clerics are assisting their attempt to eliminate minority groups they already discriminate against, libel, slander and use as cover for their own criminality.
Putting a minority in jail for life for existing removes them from society based on a trait. Uganda is doing this. Uganda is 44% Catholic, 40% Anglican.
Got any evidence of the reverse happening, where religious folks face life in prison? Because they are doing that to my people right now.
I'll await your response.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I have denounced anti-gay hate speech and I absolutely condemn eliminationist intent of anyone. That you have not seen me says nothing about where I stand on such issues, only the lack of perception on your part; so spare me your fictions.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's absolutely true that different forms of bigotry run rampant in atheist and secularist circles, particularly Islamophobia and misogyny (Dawkins is more than guilty of both, in fact). Bigotry is not exclusively for the faithful.
But it's still a pretty far cry from "religious people are stupid" to ethnic cleansing. A lot of the anti-religious fervor among atheists stems from anger, betrayal, and fear--that they were lied to by people they trusted, that they see people they care about being deceived and psychologically abused, and that they're on the receiving end of dehumanization and otherizing at the hands of people with a lot of power and influence. That anger is understandable. This is also a world where apostasy is punishable by death in certain places, and by ostracizing and shaming in others.
But ethnic cleansing or genocide are not even necessary when it comes to undermining faith or eradicating the ignorance of religion. Education is doing that just fine. More and more people of my generation are beginning to either doubt or outright reject the existence of God as they go through higher education.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The centuries have produced plenty of people professing faith who have also excelled at scientific endeavors. Some even claim that scientific pursuits deepen their faith and sense of awe.
And yet there are some who also resent that people of faith are allowed to raise and educate their children in the family's faith. They resent that professing believers are allowed to hold public office or make decisions guided by their faith. Those who scream "Stop imposing your beliefs on me!" and imposing their beliefs the strongest. It's obviously absurd and self-contradicting.
We have to get used to the fact that people will be different. Some may even say that the way we live our lives is immoral. As long as they aren't using force/violence to achieve their version of a better world I'm prepared to live with that. The fighting has to stop and seeking to marginalize and eliminate those with whom we disagree will only make things worse. We're the ones calling for peace, we should be willing to demonstrate what that looks like and thereby prove it is the better way with its own reward.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's a sort of cognitive dissonance that someone can on one hand dedicate their profession to questioning every conclusion and established process and on the other hold a belief in something without proof.
Faith is by definition irrational. Secularists are right to decry public officials making decisions based on it because they're not making rational decisions. Support an apartheid state in the Middle East because it will bring the Second Coming. Decry climate change studies because the Earth is only 6/8/10k years old. Push against teaching evolution because Genesis says otherwise. Discriminate against the LGBT because of Leviticus. Secularists don't dominate public office and major policy institutions; however much they shout down religion pales in comparison to the actual capacity for religious individuals to impose their irrational beliefs on others.
We're under no obligation to tolerate the bigotry, ignorance, and irrational thought of religious groups. We can't tolerate intolerance.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)and is based on no observation but a subjective belief of the person holding it. It presumes to know the end of all things absent direct experience.
I am faithful to my husband, even though I have no idea how he will treat me in the future. Perhaps that is what is meant by faith.
That sounds very tribal. Our intolerance is better than their intolerance. So you don't approve of people who don't approve of us. Okay, BFD. As long as everyone keeps their damned hands to themselves I don't care. I am not prepared to run around telling people they believe the wrong things and as such they are lesser citizens. We live in an open and free democracy. That means we anticipate people will disagree and those disagreements will have to be settled politically rather than force of arms. Replacing the one evil with the exact same evil so long as the right colored flag is flying is not the way to progress to a better world.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's based on evidence that observation, testing, and independent review of hypotheses of things that happen in the natural world have reliably produced accurate results. That's not faith. Trusting in science requires zero faith. On the other hand, believing in the supernatural or claims made without supporting evidence requires nothing but faith, since they can't be verified, tested, or observed.
No. We have a fairly good grasp on the natural laws of the universe, and with that understanding of how things work (scientific theories) we can make reliably accurate predictions without direct observation.
There's more than one definition of faith. There's the faith that means belief in the absence of proof, and there's also the faith that means an obligation of fidelity. What you've described is the latter.
No, it's setting a standard. There has to be some standard of evidence and reason if humanity is going to move forward. You're free to believe whatever you wish, but if it doesn't stand up to reason and evidence, there's absolutely no obligation for people who live by that standard to also accept that belief.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No, we have what we think we understand about what we have observed. That is all we have. Everything else is based on assumption.
Whose standard and why am I obligated to it?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)For example, paleontologists uncover the remains of a species of animal in Africa. Plate tectonics theory has concluded that South America and Africa were part of the same landmass at a certain point, and the fossils of this animal date back to this time. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect to find more fossils of the same species in South America. (That actually happened, by the way. Lystrosaurus.)
Same goes for every scientific theory. We take what we know about how the natural world behaves and apply that knowledge to make predictions. It's not perfect or infallible, but it's been shown to be reliable. And it's the basis for every single modern advancement and development we enjoy. Vaccines are developed by applying the theory of evolution to predict how a virus or bacteria is going to mutate and preemptively developing a vaccine to counter the new strain.
No one's obligating you hold yourself to any particular standard in your own private beliefs. But once you start voicing those beliefs and entering them into the public discourse, people will hold it to the scientific community's standard of observation, testing, falsifiability, and independent verification before it's taken seriously. That's not tribalism or intolerance, that's how scientific fields filter out nonsense.
For example, supply side economics proposes that by allowing the rich to accumulate more and more wealth, the whole of society will benefit when that wealth trickles down to everyone else. After nearly three decades of observation and testing, it has been shown that supply side economics does no such thing. Now, am I intolerant by not wanting to see it further implemented?
Same with austerity. The study which showed austerity's benefit as opposed to Keynesian economics was deeply flawed in its research methodology, and thus its conclusions can't be trusted. Fruit of the poisonous tree. Do we tolerate austerity then, even after it's been shown to be flawed and inaccurate?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Science is a TOOLSET, for enabling us to understand the universe and ourselves. Nothing more.
Understanding is brought about by people engaged in inquiry into a subject. Science is a toolset we use to perform that inquiry. 'Science' doesn't explain anything, as it cannot speak, any more than my wrench 'explains' a bolt that it can turn.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But that also furthers my point that many approach "science" with an abundance of faith as if all things can be observed, described and understood.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I am not capable of imagining something that exists, but cannot in some way be observed, described, or understood*. If there is something to BE observed, science is the first and probably only tool I will choose to try and 'observe' it. Philosophy is an element of science, and it can certainly postulate things that cannot by definition be observed. But if such things exist, and cannot be observed, described, or understood, what do we do with that info?
That doesn't seem an element of 'faith' to me.
*If it cannot by definition be described, how can my mind conceptualize or label it in any way? If I can't describe it, my mind cannot perceive it, even to myself in my mind in thought, let alone voicing a description.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That returns to my earlier question, "Who cares?" Certainly not the material universe.
But the OP was based on Dawkins claiming religion closes the mind to inquiry into things outside itself. As I pointed out earlier plenty of people of faith contribute to scientific inquiry. Yet, somehow Dawkins and his sort have closed their minds to anything they cannot observe as if their ability to do so is the sole determining factor of reality. Moreover, they attach a moral quality on accepting their article of faith as if the material universe knows or cares. To refuse to denounce the possibility of realities beyond our own is to utter heresy.
Is observation a good place to base one's assertions? Absolutely. I'm certainly not slamming science as a pursuit but I also admit its limits. Hell, scientists can't even decide whether or not eating eggs is healthy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Yet, somehow Dawkins and his sort have closed their minds to anything they cannot observe as if their ability to do so is the sole determining factor of reality."
Dawkins' actual profession is built on observing the effects of a process that occurs on a timescale too long to observe directly for most species. That is a invalid claim. Moreover, he and others use things like probability to evaluate the claims of various religions. AND various forms of logic or sociology or genetics or archaeology or cosmology or blah, to evaluate claimed revealed truth upon which various religions are either founded, or purport to reveal.
"Hell, scientists can't even decide whether or not eating eggs is healthy."
That's a fantastic example, because its a capture of an idea that science is a process to understanding something, not a revealed truth in and of itself.
A couple religions had dietary commandments that make no sense whatsoever, and they claim to be based on revealed truth, but there is no actual verifiable truth to be found, evaluating the risk of eating the proscribed foods, nor in evaluating the veracity of the source as being supernaturally revealed truth at all. Some religions have relaxed those rules, some have not. Which also calls into question whether these religions actually surface immutable revealed truth or not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Helping people find a new core philosophy, a new way of thinking, helping them to replace old/broken ideas, is not a form of ethnic cleansing, as no people are being cleansed at all.
The 'religion as a socially transmitted disease' meme is one of Dawkins' core tools, because he is quite successful at pointing out that your geographic location and cultural inclusion is the largest predictor of what religion, and thus what god, you are likely to belong to.
Taking apart an idea, holding it up in the light for all to see it for what it is, isn't ethnic cleansing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)who cares?
Why should anyone feel obligated to think the right ideas? Does the universe know/care if people believe it is 6,000 years old or 16 billion years old?
A person could believe the universe is made of cheese for all I care, as long as he leaves his fellow citizens in peace.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They impact my life every day, from their core faith/dogma. Injecting their religious beliefs into legislatures, courts, you name it.
Take for instance physician assisted suicide, for the terminally ill. The RCC spent, and in other states, spends millions on this issue every year, not just opposing it as a sin for their own members, but for ALL citizens.
Take the religious dogma out of the picture, and whence the objection to allowing people who are in non-manageable pain, suffering from terminal illnesses, to end their own lives in a humane manner on their own power/choice/terms?
There is no 'leaves his fellow citizens in peace' at this time. If there was, I wouldn't have to do all this shit. I wouldn't have to fight, every fucking day.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)if a person of faith championed those ideas?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)on something other than 'XYZ supernatural being told me so', if they want me to join ranks.
There are non-religious bedrock to source those two issues on. I do it all the time.
Upon what non-religious bedrock does one source the opposition to self-euthanasia when a person is miserably dying already, and WANTS to die, and CANNOT be helped otherwise?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)dictated a competition for resources and that the sick and dying should not have scarce resources expended upon them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)s or thereabouts, and that they don't understand how evolution works at all.
Social engineering of that manner is no more 'survival of the fittest' than humans custom-engineering dogs through selective breeding to fill a role, such as sheepherding, represents 'survival of the fittest'.
I would also point out that my resources are mine, not theirs. I may dispose of my resources as I see fit, purchasing care for myself or others, as I see fit.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That species compete for rare resources is an observed fact. That some species die out when resources are insufficient and they cannot adapt is observed fact. That these mass extinctions have allowed us to be here today is an observed fact.
Yet humanity, in strictly materialist terms, satisfies no special place in the cosmos. Nothing wanted us to be here, nothing governs us except our own subjective whims and nothing will judge or mourn us once we are gone from a universe in which we occupied an infinitesimal space for a fraction of a moment.
And if his resources happen to be weapons then maybe your resources will be his resources after all. You may yourself may become his resource. You may contest him with weapons of your own but that won't prove who is right, only who is left -- but that in itself would reaffirm the notion that only the fittest survive in a contest for resources where the loser becomes extinct.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And peaceful commerce is winning. Humans are less and less violent all the time, because we increasingly respect property rights, and increasingly oppose, collectively, forceful acquisition of other people's property.
Big bad dude might want my stuff, and I might defend myself as well, but others have a rational self-interest in opposing big bad dude WITH me, because after all, big bad dude has established a precedent that threatens them as well.
THAT is an evolutionary sociological response.
My 'opinion' is self-supporting. My stuff is mine, and mine alone. Your stuff is yours and yours alone.
If I posit that your stuff is my stuff, then I establish a precedent that my stuff is your stuff, to be internally consistent.
"Yet humanity, in strictly materialist terms, satisfies no special place in the cosmos. Nothing wanted us to be here, nothing governs us except our own subjective whims and nothing will judge or mourn us once we are gone from a universe in which we occupied an infinitesimal space for a fraction of a moment."
That's a big concept. That's something that requires philosophical introspection to determine what it means, since society has in the past assumed some 'meaning' or 'place'. This new idea is something I would like to see society start to tackle what it means, and what 'place' we want for ourselves.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Unlike in the past we now have the capacity to annihilate life as we know it. That's not peace, that's fear of consequence.
If I posit that your stuff is my stuff, then I establish a precedent that my stuff is your stuff, to be internally consistent.
The Marxists will be more than happy to posit such a case and they happily slaughtered 100 million people to prove the point.
I can't see it as that big a concept. It's a mere encapsulation of what atheism states and it has been under discussion since Nietzsche observed that if God is dead then all things are permitted.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Nowhere.
Yes, we are in more peaceful times. You bet. Damn skippy.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's irrelevant who is championing a certain position or hypothesis. What matters is whether the rationale or evidence behind the idea stands up to scrutiny. A person of faith advocating for an idea and providing testable evidence to back up their claim is different from one advocating an idea without it.
Atheists and people of faith have both championed horrible and good ideas. There are warmongering secularists and anti-war Christians, atheists who oppose the death penalty and Christians who endorse it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)At the end of the day it's not about where the idea comes from but the idea itself. To further illustrate that I would ask: is it better to die a victim in a Nazi death camp or live to old age as a Nazi camp guard?
But nothing in that statement could be scientifically testable. Science is limited and the idea that people draw from religion -- even the unction to become scientists -- is not grounds for disqualification.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would posit it is better to resist, even if it risks death, because only in people resisting will the practice be terminated. If you go along to get along and become a guard, much greater atrocities will continue on.
Bad ideas sometimes have to be overturned by way of attrition.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)which would be the "better" life?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If the choice exists, resistance is possible.
I would resist, even if the probability was, I would personally fail and die. Someone has to.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's hardly true. In fact, by evaluating actions and their effects on people, scientific analysis can actually provide a good compass on moral and immoral, if we define moral as avoiding inflicting harm.
Progressive dog
(6,941 posts)and Dawkins is on the side of knowledge.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Progressive dog
(6,941 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I might, according to my biases, say that many scientists and people of knowledge exist in spite of their religious faith.
But that's a crass role reversal. I have the utmost respect for people like Ken Miller. A Roman Catholic that keeps his faith, and his unwavering support for evolution entirely firewalled and separate. A man of principle.
But I believe he would remain a man of principle even if he wasn't a member of the RCC.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What could be clearer.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Since the biblical account of genesis is clearly horseshit, and Ken Miller has moved beyond that, AND maintained his faith, yes, in this case the negative is religion, and the positive is not due to the dogma of the RCC.
Not that I can't think of examples the other way around, though. There are some people that do horrid things despite the explicit prohibition by their faith from doing so.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"This is true because the Bible/god/my religion says it's true, and everyone should have to go along with it" and the people who think that's a totally fucked up way to decide anything, and that we can do much better.
We already know which side of the battle you're on.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).
Interestingly, people don't seem to consistently follow their own church's teaching with regard to evolution. Mormon acceptance is low, at 22%, but that church has no official stance on evolution. Catholics accept evolution at a rate of 58% and yet evolution is taught in Catholic schools and I believe the Vatican has even endorsed it. I don't know what explains the 42% non-acceptance rate among Catholics but the blame does not lie in official church teaching.
More interesting to me is how many of those who see themselves as defenders of science and rationality fall back on their own prejudices instead of looking at actual empirical data.
longship
(40,416 posts)But just because there are religious people who accept evolution does not mean evolution denial isn't based on religion. Creationism is inherently religious.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)can be gained only from religion and in no other way? What life-guiding principles that are not delusions does religion provide, and nothing else?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I know there's always going to be some calls hosts get wrong, but lately it doesn't seem there are any standards whatsoever in GD.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Both religious posts and posts about religion. Would reduce a lot of conflict around here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)on keyword trash and have for some time. But I don't think, "Threads I don't like stayed open so I'm going to nullify the SOP altogether" is a very good philosophy for GD hosts.
Edit: btw, I guess I missed the Pope material in this thread. Must be eye strain or something.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stated as a very good reason to not lock a post even if it is way out of the SOP.
Hosting is very complicated until you figure out that what we do here is discuss stuff, and that if people are having a discussion, that is a good thing.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)People click on it for shits and giggles. People would click on "free porn inside" too, but that doesn't make it good for GD. And yes, I'm very familiar with the tactic of ignoring or dragging feet on alerts so that one can argue "well we can't lock this look how many posts there are now." It's a silly game to play and I for one hope the admins won't allow it to go on much longer.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The first time I volunteered to host I had the same reaction, there is the sop, let's enforce it. About half way through my term, it suddenly dawned on me that hardly anything should be locked at all. I started reading the various explanations from the admins, the discussions about those explanations, and really, the first rule of hosting is "don't lock anything". Locking blocks the flow, stops the discussion, hurts the person who posted the op, and infuriates people participating in the discussion. It is the very last thing any hosts should do in gd.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)In their wisdom, the admins realized that certain topics inevitably become tedious sloganeering (seriously, look*) and created places where people who wanted tedious sloganeering could do that. GD is not that place. It's pretty simple. If hosts are unwilling to enforce that division then they should not be hosts.
(*It's not a coincidence that the people doing that are coming from the Religion group, where this should have been posted.)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)The pinned post says "no religion" in GD and "no exceptions" currently:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022542300
This post is in clear violation of that, and the fact that it has been allowed to stand shows how broken the jury system is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)This post is not about that at all...it is about disparaging people who are religious.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The pope is disparaging me, other women, and gay people. Yet there are many posts slobbering over the pope that are allowed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Then start with yourself.
“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because you differ from yourself ten years ago.”
― Horace Mann
“I don't think avoiding conflict is not caring.
~Shin”
― Ai Yazawa, Nana, Vol. 12
“Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict -- alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.”
― Dorothy Thompson
“I have a self-made quote: Celebrate diversity, practice acceptance and may we all choose peaceful options to conflict.”
― Donzella Michele Malone
“Ideas stand in the corner and laugh while we fight over them.”
― Marty Rubin
Now those are all quotes that do not divide us into warring parties unlike the quote in this OP.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Gosh, what harm could the Church possibly inflict on people?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You must be a fast reader or did not bother to read it or reflect in any way on what was said.
Just once again attack that straw man.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/richard-dawkins-appearances-events-2007-2008
There's much more at his store.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)seriously rug, that is your evidence for your claim?
Oh wait, you don't need evidence.
rug
(82,333 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Cult be damned. . .when someone says something profound that I agree with, I'm going to add it to my lexicon.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It is impossible to understate the power of delusion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Because if you were, in addition to being supercilious, it would be incredibly stupid.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Do you believe that once you are dead you will go to a place where all the ills you suffered in life will be rewarded?
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you actually think they're the same thing? 
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Don't sweat it, I know the answer.
Yes, you and the majority of the human population on earth are captured in a fantasy that's only purpose is to placate you long enough that you will be dead or harmless before you figure out how you're being played.
You won't believe me or anybody else, you are almost certainly a lost cause. Fortunately your children will progress beyond you and theirs beyond them and eventually humanity will become wise enough to throw off these ridiculous fantasies that have crippled progress and helped the tyrants rule for far too long.
rug
(82,333 posts)Religion is now magic and fantasy. (With a dose of ponderous predictions.)
If you just want to engage in name-calling and stereotypes, say so. If not, try to be a little sharper.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)But this definitely deserves another 
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Deliberate goading, fishing for a personal insult, is not stalking, it is trolling.
Oh and you have made it quite clear that assertions without evidence are just fine.
rug
(82,333 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Robert E. Howard's Conan would have never been found bloody and weeping at the feet of Thoth Amon.
I like to read your posts, though.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It was an laughable caricature of the story, and Ahnald was appropriately ridiculous in the title role, but it was wildly popular and there are several good points buried in the schlock.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You've got to admit, they did an amazing job with the music, sets, and costumes. It very much feels like the world Conan inhabits, even though Conan doesn't seem to be in the story. 
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)because you're right about the music, sets and costumes. But Schwarzenegger was not right for the role, and that scene of a weeping Conan was totally out of character. His gaze and demeanor would have been baleful, and even bound and prone, Thoth Amon's safety could not be guaranteed. Conan was, in a word, Billy-badass.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)This is fun, showing how simplistic your arguments really are.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)This is not fun, talking simplicities to people who think in simplicities.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)or anti-woman horseshit.
No, really, this is fun.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Well done, Sid.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Kick
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)The impression that I get from it is that it is basically grouping religious people into a box, as if we're all ignorant just like the fundamentalists on the Right. Backwards-minded people such as Santorum and Bachmann do not represent all Christians, just like Eric Cantor and Sheldon Adelson do not speak for all Jewish people. There is much more to each religion than "teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding". In Buddhism, for instance, there is the Eightfold Path that is used to achieve enlightenment. A huge part of the Buddha's teachings is to end suffering by cutting off greed and ignorance, and to live in the present.
With this quote by Dawkins, it's as if there is very little room for any gray area.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)I sort of agree, because I think for a lot of people, religion is about understanding. A lot of people have really considered what they believe and their religion of choice reflects that and to that person, it makes sense and explains a lot of the world for them. So, I don't feel this quote really ... makes a lot of sense.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Cantor and Adelson do not. All are despicable people, but you are equating the behavior of Bachmann and Santorum to the personal identity of the other two. Santorum and Bachmann speak about religion and claim to speak for those who share their 'faith', the other two are just Jewish. The apples and oranges comparison is a tad creepy to me.
One could contrast a nut like Santorum to another Catholic like John Kerry and say 'look, Kerry is a supporter of choice and equality and also Catholic' and make a strong point. Once could point out that Obama is like Bachmann, a Protestant of no mainstream denomination, but that Obama is not a crazed hate mongering loon and that's a strong point.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Who attacks millions of gay people as being a 'destructive attack on God's plan'. He says our marriages come from Satan. He says gay parents are a form of child abuse, discrimination against the child.
While saying this, Francis takes the title 'Holy Father' and 'Vicar of Christ' because he does not think too highly of himself? Bow to me, call me Holy Father, 'cause I'm so humble!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think it is odd that you equate a man 'of faith' and a atheist has having the same flaws. What does that say about the value of the faith, if the atheist is as bad as you say? Where's the benefit?
Of course you have to sail right past the fact of the homophobic hate speech, which is on one side only. Knowledge = Life. Denial will do great harm, always.
Your posts make me profoundly sad.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ifyou want my opinion on the homophobic opinions of the pope DCannd other religious leaders I will tell you I hate it. I hate the fact the pope said gays should not adopt. I was hoping they were moving another direction.
Dawkins is arrogant and thinks too highly of himself just like many religious leaders
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But seriously, he may believe that the devil is behind marriage equality, but did you see the latest pictures of him kissing people's feet? So cute!
progressoid
(50,086 posts)So, you'll be getting rid of that Steve Jobs quote in your sig line then?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But on this, he's right.
The Abrahamic religions certainly do put a taboo on certain kinds of knowledge and questioning in general. But that's to be expected of something engineered by powerful people who want to keep that power: imply that questioning authority and gaining knowledge is a sin.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)When I was going through the Arkansas school system back in the '60s and '70s, I had lots of teachers were who were always encouraging us kids to think for ourselves-- and a significant number of them (at least a dozen that I can remember offhand) had received their teaching degree at a Presbyterian university, the University of the Ozarks in Clarksville, Arkansas.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Some aspects of religion has had to meld with modern culture and attitudes about science and education. You can't very well teach any sort of science discipline without promoting critical thinking.
But the fact is that the Abrahamic faiths, Christianity in particular, are based on faith--belief in the absence of proof. The very foundation of Christianity is believing things without understanding. Even the more liberal denominations.
And apparently billions are comfortable with that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)since science is in large part responsible for the myriad environmental problems that we are facing today.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Sorry, but the Abrahamic faiths aren't. That's a nonsensical false equivalency. Belief in scientific conclusions is rational, belief in the supernatural isn't.
And don't blame science for the unwarranted influence of the fossil fuel industries. That's a problem with capitalism, not science.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Until 1973, the scientific and medical communities agreed with the Church that gay people were 'diseased'. Without any evidence, in spite of obvious natural reality, they took up belief and used it to excuse years of torture and profit stemming from quack 'treatments' of 'the gay disorder'.
But sure, they are always grounded, never do they behave exactly like those they criticize, for generations, with instruments and lobotomies to entertain them.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I've already explained why I don't make apologies for ECT, lobotomization, psychiatry's brutal history, or the classification of homosexuality as a disorder. Bad methods and studies caused that, and then good methods and studies corrected it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's actually a perfect example of what Dawkins' OP quote is all about.
The Old Testament tells us that homosexuality is a sin. If that's the basis of your worldview, doing anything OTHER than 'diagnosing' homosexuality as a 'disorder' is closed to you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)errors, would not insist that the community has a process so sound that anything they say must be taken as fact. Science and religion are both flawed because both are human products.
For a hundred years, until 1973. Science held bullshit as fact, because they had declared it to be fact. People died. And no one paused for amends, nor to correct the process that lead to such bullshit conclusions being made into 'Medical Fact'.
It was not science at all, it posed as science, and that is often the case. Science folks fall for 'woo' of a dark, controlling and horrific nature, rather regularly. Wise humans remain on guard, and will not rush to have a family member lobotomized next time 'Science' says being human is a sickness.
Duppers
(28,147 posts)I agree yet I think since he lives in Japan, Art is probably referring to the nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi.
Fukushima Daiichi disaster can be blamed, imo, on horrible engineering decisions. Science is not the problem, it's how it is used. Some would say the same of religion; however - growing up in a family who questioned science and where I was told to never question anything about religion - I must agree with the OP.
struggle4progress
(118,473 posts)why the modern scientific revolution appeared in Christendom, and why there have been dozens of Jewish Nobel laureates?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The vast millions of followers of Christianity and Islam weren't the ones behind those scientific advances. The educated elite were.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Nothing could possibly be more arrogant than believing that you know everything; that you possess the knowledge of why and how we got here, what we're doing, and everything else about existence, despite all evidence to the contrary and all the opinions of other people. That is the position of every single religious person. But atheists are constantly accused of arrogance for simple stating that we think you're probably wrong.
Think about it. Who is really being arrogant here?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And i think he is personally arrogant, not because he is an atheist. I do not believe atheists are arrogant.
dorkulon
(5,116 posts)Do you believe in a specific God with specific instructions? Do you know what it is He wants? If so, you're claiming special, supernatural knowledge for which there remains no real evidence. More arrogant than Dawkins by far.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
MsPithy
(809 posts)their true reward will be in heaven, the rich can do whatever the fuck they want to the poor in this life.
And, by being "good," they mean, accept the crumbs we give you, without complaint. Oh, and bowing before the rich as they flick off their crumbs to you would be a nice touch.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and rewards the diligent.
Religious understanding, like any other, does not come easy. Embracing dogma as certain truth is fraught with peril when one does not put in the effort to first find the truth.
I think this quote better addresses the problem:
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
-Charles Bukowski
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts) 
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)What worries me about Dawkins is that he teaches people to be satisfied with a simplistic quote rather than trying to understand the complexities of something as widespread and varied as religion.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"satisfied with simplistic quotes." I do agree with your sentiment, however, that simplistic quotes do not provide the final word on any matter of consequence.
I understand atheists that get a bit aggressive with their barbs at the religious. It's born of frustration at the conscientious faithful for their inability or unwillingness to confront the outright hypocritical faithful.
Likewise, it's not constructive to judge a religion by the behavior of those who misapply it.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)
I figured one simplistic quote deserves another.
As a scholar of religion, I find that kind of generalization incredibly stupid. I despise fundamentalism as much as the next person, and in American society fundamentalism is unfortunately a huge presence, but in real life I don't know many fundamentalists. And I know a LOT of religious people (of various religions).
snot
(10,550 posts)But the moment they're dead, the power struggles begin and bureaucracies arise whose main mission is to perpetuate their control. And I think Dawkins is correct insofar as doctrines of the necessity of "faith" and obedience to rules are used to bolster that kind of authoritarian control.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)"'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Sid
G_j
(40,373 posts)I suspect there will be an exceptionally broad spectrum of perceptions of what "understanding" means.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)But not always.
You can me a man of science and a man a god. The father of genetics was a monk.
I am agnostic by the way.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,511 posts)No-one has mentioned the context of the Dawkins' sentence, or even wondered, it seems. It comes from a 1996 BBC Religion and Ethics programme he presented:
Heart Of The Matter: God Under The Microscope | BBC (1996)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Synopsis
Atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins explores the relationship between science, religion and the pursuit of knowledge, challenging the role of religion and explaining his views about the value of scientific research. He talks with Nobel laureate Dr James Watson, who was involved in the discovery of DNA. Joan Bakewell discusses the issues wtih Dawkins, Michael Heller, Baroness Warnock, Wentzel van Huytssteen and David Starkey. Filmed in Brno in the Czech Republic, and the discussion in the library at Gregor Mendel’s Augustinian monastery in Brno.
http://bufvc.ac.uk/dvdfind/index.php/title/8814
We can't tell if he said this without relevant sentences before, or after, if it's in reply to a specific question in the discussion, or in what sounds like a section he recorded before the discussion. I think a sentence set alone can often be misleading about the meaning the speaker gave originally.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What abominations people won't go through just to stabilize their own belief system, eh? 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they at least recognize it and seek to understand. In general IMO religions try to satisfy "not understanding" by dogma and faith. Religions dont teach people to be satisfied with not understanding. They understand all.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Is the quotation true? Acknowledging the generality, I would say yes. Religion does encourage people to be satisfied with not understanding.
I think discussions of Dawkins' personality are irrelevant.
--imm
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And I support Dawkins, but I look at it different. When people dont understand, IMO, religions instead of teaching people that it's ok not to understand, they try to fill the "non-understanding" void with dogma and faith. They understand how the world was formed, where humans came from, where or not the earth is the center of the universe, etc. Religions have an explanation for almost everything. And a lot of the time it's simply, "It's God's way."
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Is there a difference? Saying "it's god's way" is a way of being satisfied with not understanding. Dogma and faith are anathema to understanding.
--imm
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with theories (I am not sure how gravity works but I am ok with that), while the religious, in general, dont like theories, because there is always the fall back answer (It's God's way). I admit it's a small point.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)and an inaccurate one at that.
It's true of some types of religion, but not all.
uppityperson
(115,684 posts)Incredible.
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)More crimes have been comitted and are beeing comitted under under the cloak of religious ideals than any other.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)...something that Dawkins chooses not to believe. There's a big difference.
I say this as a relative non-believer, formerly raised as a fundamentalist Christian who long ago left that line of faith -- I'm hardly the kind of person to defend religion just for the hell of it...so to speak. Nor is my line meant to imply a belief that any religion is correct; any of them could be more correct than we know, or not. The thing is, at the moment we don't know for sure, so -no one- 'understands' with any accuracy.
sagat
(241 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so I guess you think being demeaning is appropriate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to slam the pope if they find him to be an arrogant insulting person.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lord kknowsthere is plenty to say about religion.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)do not eat of the tree of knowledge.
stay stupid & have faith that some higher being will come through for you or else you deserved it anyway.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)set aside everything you hear second hand. Or read one of his many books.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... as those that dare to question their bullshit.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
polichick
(37,152 posts)k&r
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)They are both tools used to manipulate and control the masses by our ruling elite.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)What if we refuse to stigmatize an entire group based upon the presumptive ramblings of one individual? What if we being aware of history, know the inaccuracies in this cartoon?
For example, Buzz Aldrin, Doctor Aldrin actually since he had a Doctorate. A deeply religious man who pushed the knowledge of all humanity. You could hardly say he held back knowledge, or that his faith held back the soaring intellect that he was.
Yet it is fashionable to belittle those with belief, and paint them with a brush so broad that it is beyond insulting. Only a fool insults an entire group. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools would insult so many groups so publicly and call on people to cheer him for it.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)I think that there are a lot of people here who have had bad experiences with toxic forms of religion, and this has led them to over-generalize. It's also fashionable in some circles to be dismissive of religion, especially among people at either extreme: those who have had experiences with the toxic forms or those who have had no experience at all.
My experiences with religion and religious people have been overwhelmingly positive.
YMMV.
But Dawkins' statement is a broad brush, sort of like the things that some religious people say about atheists. If you're an atheist and don't like the ignorant things that some religious people say about you, why is it then acceptable to make sweeping (and sometimes ignorant) generalizations about religious people?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But he's also a Republican and a denier of human caused climate change.
Buzz did attend a same sex wedding, which is good because he is three times divorced and not in a position to lecture.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)if it wasn't something that was taught to us from early childhood. The different faiths teach their beliefs to their young at an early age to inculcate their beliefs into the child's mind and form his stance on everything, usually delineating the world into categories of black and white. It's only as we grow older that we start to perceive areas of gray, if we're lucky. But, that all depends on the particular rigidness of the dogma being taught. It breaks my heart to see my grandson being raised in WV after my son's divorce by fundamentalist relatives who admire the Duck Dynasty stance against gays and embracing the narrow-mindedness of evangelical right-wing religious beliefs. Young minds are malleable and everyone thinks that their theology is the One True Faith.
Is it any wonder either, that so many people turn from faith when so many religions insist on literalism and contort themselves into pretzels of illogic to explain the discrepancies of their doctrines or to demand blind faith of conviction or certitude in the face of the absurd, inconsistent and often cruel aspects of their creeds and tenets? I became an atheist when my mind rejected the constant loop of irrational dogma in relation to the observations of the world around me. The Inquisition, the caste system, cruelty to humans and beasts, the indifference to genocide, xenophobia and persecution of women in most religions, the mass killings of the First Americans and pre-Columbians and its justifications by the religious of the time and even today. Yes, yes, I know. Many faithful organizations give to the poor and disadvantaged. But, many times throughout the world, even today, the poor as looked down on as deserving of their suffering by a judgmental god(s). Entrance to the afterlife is assured by bribing one's deity with good works, instead of striving to learn the meaning of what is good. The young have no choice but to have their minds molded into the faiths they are born into. It would be nice if they had a choice in life to decide as they got older or had the opportunity of learning of many different faiths and of the concept of no faith at all and from there, made a life choice of the philosophy they would choose to embrace as they came of age.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Look at all the former fundamentalists on DU. Look at all the former Catholics.
I was raised Lutheran and became Episcopalian. I know Episcopalians who embraced Buddhism or Judaism, Baptists who became Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans who became Muslims or Hutterites, Jews who became Hindus or Unitarians--if you live long enough, you'll see all kinds of transitions, some of them quite startling.
I also know people who were raised non-religious and became religious in later life.
However, I'm a firm believer in raising children within SOME ethical and moral framework. It doesn't have to be religion. It can be environmentalism, socialism, vegetarianism, pacifism, whatever, as long as it offers a challenge to the commercial, corporate culture.
It is GOOD for a child to be able to say, "I'm not going to do that because it's against my family's beliefs."
The alternative--"Let them decide when they grow up"--is an open invitation to the corporate pop culture to occupy their brains entirely, unless the parents are diligent in cultivating the children's intellectual curiosity and tendencies toward non-conformity with the herd.
The result is young people who don't know anything and don't want to know anything that is not either in recent pop culture or useful for their job, who are incapable of saying or doing anything unless "everyone else" is doing it, who accept whatever entertainment, products, or politics that the mass media are pushing.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)And religion doesn't have to provide a moral framework, especially if it teaches a child to be judgmental of others and instills racism. I worry about my grandson, whom I only see twice a year when I fly over to WV and whom his mother drives down to visit us once a year. I feel helpless in the face of the fundamentalist teachings they give him over "Islamofascists" and the evils of gays. I despair over the way they try and make sure my grandson doesn't spend any time alone with my gay brother, as if they're afraid he'd hurt my grandson or "gay" him. I also belong to a very large extended family of Roman Catholics. I'm the only one who is a non-believer. The rest are staunch church-goers although, with the exception of one teabagger sister, they trend liberal, mostly I'm sure, because we're Hispanics and my parents and aunts and uncles arrived in the US as undocumented workers. But there are no converts among them with the exception of my nephew's wife who converted to Catholicism from Reformed Judaism upon their marriage.
On the flip side, I know many atheists who were raised that way by atheist parents and atheist parents who are raising their children without religion. They are kind to others for the sake of kindness and I'm not saying that children shouldn't be raised without ethical and moral teachings; far from it. But, I don't think that all morals and ethics are necessarily derived from religion and dogma. Too many children, like me, were terrorized from an early age in catechism to believe that they will be punished in the afterlife with fiery retribution if they aren't good. That does a lot of damage to a young mind. I believe that that's one reason so many rigidly religious people are so judgmental and hostile to others they perceive as sinners. They need to believe other people are evil and deserving of damnation so that they can feel that their god's wrath won't be directed at them. Such a world view of a vindictive hateful god just isn't reconcilable to a vision of a loving, benevolent father. The dichotomy turns many people off to religion. In a perfect world, all religions would teach that the deity(s) would be all-powerful and loving to his/her/their creation, never raining retribution on helpless men, women and children. The reality is far different. Precious few of them do.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)The harm comes when people are literally raised with no firm values of any sort.
Throd
(7,208 posts)ffr
(22,698 posts)Normal decent people who can be whipped into unjust thoughts towards others at the drop of a hat.
Deductive thought isn't consistent with that kind of thinking, other than to say, be wary of those who cannot think deductively.
GoneOffShore
(17,354 posts)And Dawkins is not a dogmatist.
The CCC
(463 posts)Hummm let's take a look at this last century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... These weren't exactly religious people.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He elevated 'the party' to a form of theology itself. A 'faith'.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)The belt buckles on the belts of Nazi soldier read "Gott Mit Uns." God Is With Us. Hitler didn't operate in a vacuum. Germany was a country split into a faction of two religions; Catholicism and Lutherans. He would never have been able to carry out his Holocaust against Jews, Slavs, Gyspsies, communists and homosexuals if it hadn't been for the cooperation of those devout Catholics and Lutherans.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But he behaved as a theocrat, and used theocracy as a template, with simple word substitution. Not even a clever trick, really.
Nor was he motivated 'by' atheism. There is nothing inherent in the concept of atheism that produces pogroms, etc.
Atheism is a Boolean answer to one question: is there a supernatural god, y/n.
Nothing more.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I suspect the outcome would have been the same, if he had done it any other way, with or without faith.
rug
(82,333 posts)Stevepol
(4,234 posts)that's not the only thing that worries me about religion.
But at the same time, just because religion limits people's understanding, does that mean that if you are an atheist, you understand?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Just ask the Germans who lived under Hitler, or the Native Americans who died under the Papacy.
Gothmog
(146,701 posts)Religion is no barrier to believing science http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1218&thread=105037&pid=105094
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)He was a paleontologist & biologist, and wrote interesting books about evolution and fossils. I read The Panda's Thumb.
And when he died, the religious folk were thrilled, gloating and screaming about how surely, he's roasting in hell.
Stay classy, Christians.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" and each have their own areas of inquiry.
N_E_1 for Tennis
(9,896 posts)I have taken exception to that quote many times.
Beliefs are are very hard thing to describe to others.
Yes to an atheist, religion, dogma, god, gods, seem to be in the area of " unthoughtful".
But really is that true? I had extensive religious training. When I "believed" I thought out my belief.
I pondered.
In my case it led to a non-belief in any god. That is not true in all cases, with some it leads to a stronger faith. Who are we religious or non-religious to discount anyone's belief?
Critical thinking encompasses all thinking, taking all into account and coming up with a reasonable theory.
I have friends that are Jehovah's Witness, many of my best discussions of life, politics, beliefs were had during talks with them. They knew my stance, I theirs. No trying to persuade one to the other side, just pure discussion.
Understanding each other, without predijuce, without dissent, is a key in understanding us all.
Religion, IMHO, is based on a fear of death.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I fight against the Roman Catholic Church all the damn time over social policy. Catholics exert political influence in ways that I HAVE to fight, on abortion, contraceptive availability, euthanasia, marriage, gender equality, etc.
Jehovah's Witness's have a prohibition on blood transfusions. Not once in my life have I had to fight with/argue about that. Why? Because Jehovah's Witness's only proscribe it for themselves. There is no lobbying effort in this country, by Jehovah's Witness's to prohibit blood transfusions and require bloodless surgery for ALL citizens.
I tend to think that belief they hold is stupid, and self-defeating, but I am not motivated to campaign against it directly, because it only has potential to harm themselves, electively.
I have no fight with people who keep their faith dogma to themselves, whatever my opinion of that faith might be.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)philosophy classes (both religious and non-religious philosophy) to warrant a minor in philosophy, I think this is the rare Dawkins quote that misses the mark.
I think people innately want answers to questions about where humans come from, what is humanity's purpose in this world, what happens to our consciousness after we die, etc. From the dawn of recorded history, religions have risen up in all cultures to provide answers to these questions. This is universally true.
I don't find that atheists (such as myself) as more (or less) thoughtful than religious people when it comes to ontological questions for which the answers are essentially unknowable.
reflection
(6,286 posts)I read a quote in The Sun (wonderful magazine, recommend it to everyone, especially liberals) that said "If you understand, things are as they are. If you don't understand, things are as they are." I believe it was a Buddhist who said this, but it's been a few months since I read it. I don't care a whit for organized religion these days, but I also am beginning to appreciate the value of accepting that I don't understand everything and don't have to.
polihood
(92 posts)Too simplistic.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Science.
Nika
(546 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)believing things in the face of contradictory evidence is a virtue.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)
mike_c
(36,281 posts)That graphic sums up the effect of religious insanity quite well.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Duppers
(28,147 posts)Check this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?_r=2&
thesquanderer
(12,030 posts)Religion provides answers. They may be wrong (or scientifically unsubstantiated) answers, but nevertheless, the people have answers and therefore believe they have an understanding. The people aren't, as he suggests, satisfied with not understanding; rather they believe they DO understand.
What religion takes away is the ability to be okay with simply not knowing. It takes away the "acceptability" of knowingly NOT understanding, and recognizing that there are simply limits to what we know and understand. "We don't know" isn't good enough. There has to be an answer.
So I would flip it:
Something that worries me about religion is that it it teaches people to be dissatisfied with not understanding.
dead_head
(81 posts)And saying this is not based on facts.
In the middle ages, Islam promoted religions and huge advancement where made into astrology, lenses, writing and other stuff. Actually because of the middle east, europe was able to get the ancient greeks texts and that was very important for the enlightement.
The fact that Dawkins does'nt base his opinions on facts bothers me.
www.deadheadcomicks.com
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
of course, some people used to believe that people used to believe the earth was flat!
dead_head
(81 posts)but I don't understand the point about people believing the earth is flat.
That's normal until civilizations got more knowledge, no?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the West--now it's reversed with the crusading New Atheists
and the flat Earth meta-myth's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth and http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2012/03/geologist-tries-history-or-agora-and.html
mcdeavitt
(14 posts)This sounds the truthiest!
Omnith
(171 posts)The post puts all "religion" together. However, there are large variety of religions and to judge them all in such a way is very lazy and untrue. It would seem the OP is satisfied with not understanding religion; otherwise they would know some religions seek to understand everything and are not satisfied until that is case.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)For as long there are humans on Earth, there will be religion.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)that religion rises -- in part -- from an innate human need to have answers for unanswerable questions.
But atheism also lacks answers for the same unanswerable questions and -- as an atheist -- I find atheists no less complacent with their intellectual status quo with regard ontological matters.
If Thomas Aquinas said "what worries me about atheism is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding," that statement would have every bit as much validity as the Dawkins quote. Anyone who doubts this should sneak onto a religious website and post the Dawkins quote as modified above and falsely attribute the doctored quote to your favorite religious philosopher, and I bet you get a chorus of agreement that is not different from this discussion.
cachukis
(2,307 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)That is, after all, the nature of faith.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The days of Copernicus are long over. Religious people allow for science. True there are nuts, but not every religious person is a nut.
wyldwolf
(43,875 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)This thread is getting trashed along with every other war thread. I'm so sick of this.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Like that President Obama guy.
What a victim of 'not understanding.'
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The nonbelievers always win in about a dozen posts, but the faithful will never, never fucking ever, give up!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That's what happens?
Do you think the "faithful" would be happier participating on another message board?
Bryant
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)And I'm God.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)-p
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)it does...
onehandle
(51,122 posts)LAGC
(5,330 posts)Digging up months-old articles from the Daily Mail, of all places, to try to smear atheists with.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In Milwaukee Post, Cardinal Authorized Paying Abusers
Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.
Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”
But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/cardinal-authorized-payments-to-abusers.html?_r=0
Rex
(65,616 posts)doesn't necessarily mean they are convinced they have all the answers and stop asking questions. Religions arose to try and explain the universe around us and I don't think it puts a cap on critical thinking skills. Sure that might be true for some, but stereotyping an entire group of faithful seems to be not very productive.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Lets see.
I mean this one.
Bryant
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)but not ok to defend it.
Bryant
Nine
(1,741 posts)It will be interesting to see if I get a reply.
Nasty people really make this place suck sometimes.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Isn't there enough divisive off-topic shit in GD?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)to the daily multiple threads swooning over Pope Photo-Op.
Sid
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)and the Roman Catholic Church. Just like this thread is kind of a "fuck you" to believers.
Both should be consigned to the religion forums.
Bryant
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)if you are posting something you know isn't going to change any minds and is just going to piss people off - put it in the appropriate forum at least - then the people who want to read up on the pope can go there and do it and the people who want to read about how believers are dumb can go there and do it.
Bryant
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)is to clean it rather than toss more junk in to adjust the beer can/pop can ratio for the sake of litter balance.
