Richard Dawkins Slams Pope as 'Stupid' for Views on Condoms and Aids in Africa

[Ivan Seeking]

The belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being - God - cannot be falsified.

 

[Focus]

The belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being - God - cannot be falsified.

Omnipotence is a bit of a problem. Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy even he himself cannot lift it?

Omniscience contradicts free will, but that's not such a major problem. We all wish we have free will but it is an other matter to prove it.

Science cannot deal with the supernatural by definition, it is only when they claim naturalistic claims (such as the age of the universe, formation of stars etc.) when science can beyond resonable doubt prove they are false. The idea that there may be some sort of God that created everything is entirely plausable so long as what you claim to know about him, you back up with evidence.

I think a first step for people to make rational decisions about God and all else starts with understanding the universe around us. People tend to believe God did it (by this I mean the general God did it attitude) because the explanations of science seem infinitely more absurd to them. It is easy for us to ridicule people for not believing in evolution or big bang here because none of us really know how it feels to have limited knowledge in science. It seems absurd for us to think why people reject evidence, but the reality is, most of these people do not understand the science nor the evidence. They are just choosing the option that seems less absurd to them. This is why I don't really like Dawkins, he isn't actually educating people in science, he is just shoving atheism down their throats.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would actually like to see a source for that quote. Sounds like rubbish to me.

Whatever the reference, Catholics don't believe that a bible cures disease. Surely no one here is naive enough to think it true?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As a reality check, stop and ask yourself "How many medical doctors and workers are Christians?".

 

[Hurkyl]

By the time they make an official statement that indeed they have hurt millions with this comment on condoms, AIDS will already be considered a disease of the past.

I'm curious -- how much of this statement is based on knowledge of what the pope actually said and the rationale behind it and how much if it is simply hopping on the anti-Catholic bandwagon?

Point taken! Let me say that it is extremely ignorant for anybody with great public attention (and therefore responsibility) to make that claim.

What the heck does "public attention" or "responsibility" have to do with ignorance?

 

[turbo]

What the heck does "public attention" or "responsibility" have to do with ignorance?

A person of the Pope's prominence must accept the responsibility that comes with his power. For good or ill, he can support the work of others, or undermine them with a word. Remember how traders hung on every word of Greenspan's statements and parsed them over and over again, no matter how vague? Greenspan tried to walk a fine line because of his power and responsibility. In the eyes of the faithful Roman Catholics of the world, you can multiply that influence, probably by millions. It was irresponsible of the Pope to undermine the work of health-care professionals, sociologists, and other aid-workers as they try to stem the wave of HIV. It was irresponsible of him to put church doctrine (condoms=contraception=sin) ahead of the lives of people who are threatened with HIV or who may pass it on to others if they are not supplied with education and condoms.

 

[siddharth]

As for Dawkins, from what I have seen, the reasoning used against religion shows that he fails to understand the essence of faith

I think Richard Dawkins is aweful. I mean don't get me wrong, he is a smart guy and I would agree with most of the things he says but I think he is driving more (religious) people away from science and I think that's very wrong.

Since a lot of opinions are flying around, I'll add my own. I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

This is why I don't really like Dawkins, he isn't actually educating people in science, he is just shoving atheism down their throats.

Right, but sometimes, that technique might work. There are plenty of others who have a much more gentle way of promoting science. Neil De Grasse Tyson, for example. However, imo, Dawkins is very effective (in terms of popularity and books sold), because he is able to offend people and directly challenge their beliefs.

 

[BobG]

Point taken! Let me say that it is extremely ignorant for anybody with great public attention (and therefore responsibility) to make that claim. For many people in the world, the Pope is the ultimate moral authority, and they believe that their deity speaks through him. "Just say no to sex" is not going to stop the ravages of HIV in Africa, but the Pope cannot possibly publicly support the use of condoms because condoms prevent procreation as well as HIV, and that is against church doctrine.

In some African societies, there is apparently a stigma attached with condom-use, and the Pope is not exactly helping to quell this. He's not a health-care professional nor a sociologist, and he is blithely undermining the work of professionals who give so much of themselves trying to stem the tide of HIV in Africa.

There's a slight logical flaw in this flow.

The Pope says abstinence and remaining faithful to your spouse is a better method of reducing HIV, but people are sure to disregard what he says. The Pope says using condoms are bad, but people will faithfully follow his advice about condoms.

Anything the Pope says is fairly significant, since about 17% of Africans are Catholic. I don't think the things he says causes major changes in the behavior of Africans in general - not even in Catholics.

In fact, sex education promoting condom use hasn't caused major changes in behavior, either.

That said, the Pope's comments are practically a "If 2 + 2 = 5, then ..." type of statement, if only applied to Africa. You can't make a very meaningful statement about condom use/HIV on the general population unless some kind of change in behavior takes place. His comments are worse if you expand the case to other non-African countries. Promoting the use of condoms at least has the potential to reduce HIV.

http://www.rho.org/html/hiv_aids_special_focus-condoms.htm . Sex education and promoting condom use can work. It's just a lot tougher to change behaviors than one might think. Condom use for professional sex workers in Cambodia is mandatory and effective in increasing condom use during professional sexual encounters, yet those same sex workers don't use condoms during romantic sexual encounters.

 

[Focus]

I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

I agree but most of his arguments are clouded by needless ad hominems which make his arguments seem weaker than they actually are. Don't get me wrong I like watching the guy because he is amusing and clever.

Right, but sometimes, that technique might work. There are plenty of others who have a much more gentle way of promoting science. Neil De Grasse Tyson, for example. However, imo, Dawkins is very effective (in terms of popularity and books sold), because he is able to offend people and directly challenge their beliefs.

I don't think he is changing peoples beliefs, he seems to be mocking them for it, which I am all for. If you have a view then you should be able to defend it, no matter what it is. The problem I have is that he is dividing science and God. I think one of his best works was Break the Science Barier. There are a lot of people who are very ignorant of science and I think it is better to work on that rather than this God issue. Once people start to think like a scientist with reason and logic, they will start questioning their own beliefs.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, I attended the seminar today on HIV/AIDS in Mozambique, and it seems that none of the above is likely to be effective. AIDS arrived with the return of refugees after the civil wars there. It continues to spread along trade routes, where people have money to afford to buy sex. There are many women there with no means of supporting a family when the fathers have died or been killed, so prostitution is common, and they can be warned of the risks, but their only other choice is to allow their children to starve.

About 20% of the population is infected with HIV there. The average lifespan is about 40 yrs now, and it's disproportionately affecting the educated men because they are the ones who can afford prostitutes.

As for other reasons why education or condoms don't work there...a woman without children is considered worthless there, and would be thrown out by her husband.

Another problem they're running into is increased development of both HIV and TB drug resistant strains. The reason is the country will only allow a 30 day supply of medication be given out and then people have to return to a clinic to get a check up to get more medication. The two biggest at-risk groups for developing drug resistant strains are the truckers and gold mine workers. The truckers get sent all over the countries in Southern Africa and can't always get back within a month; sometimes they are on the road for 3 months before returning home. The same for gold mine workers who travel to South Africa for work and stay there for extended times before returning home. Their medication runs out before they can get back.

It seems they really are debating what to teach people there. They do teach the adults abstinence, fidelity, condoms, but only teach abstinence and fidelity to the younger children. There is a small age range where infection rates are low...after the children born with HIV infection have already died, and before teens become sexually active (about age 16 there). Education efforts are targetting that group to prevent them from getting infected. It seems that the stark reality is that you can promote abstinence, you can promote condom use, you can promote fidelity in sexual relationships, but none of them work because the people just won't comply.

 

[Hurkyl]

If he really wondered, then why didn't he find out before making his statements? It sounds more like he just wanted an excuse to attack religion.

I should withdraw this -- while the article in the OP portrays him as making a specious argument, it isn't really fair to condemn him without finding out what he actually said.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since a lot of opinions are flying around, I'll add my own. I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

Except for the fact that he seems to have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He is no more qualified to comment on religion than the Pope is to discuss String Theory.

Perpetuating hate and scorn based in ignorance is doing no one a favor. What he is doing helping to further divide a nation [if not the world] through misconception and fear. He is playing to the lowest common denominator.

Based on Moonbear's statement and the post that I made earlier about the young African man, the Pope may understand the situation far better than Dawkins does; which puts Dawkins right up there with Limbaugh.

Hmmmm, the Rush Limbaugh of science; sounds about right.

 

[arildno]

I should withdraw this -- while the article in the OP portrays him as making a specious argument, it isn't really fair to condemn him without finding out what he actually said.

Well, here it is, in his own words at richarddawkins.net:

I did not say the Pope is "stupid, ignorant or dim" – I hope I would never say anything so repetitive. My exact words were "stupid, ignorant or wicked."

Richard

Thus, he objected to having labeled the pope as "stupid, ignorant or dim".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thus, he objected to having labeled the pope as "stupid, ignorant or dim".

Given that the Pope may be right when he says that condoms won't solve the problem, what does that make Dawkins; an idiot with a big mouth?

Yep, the Rush Limbaugh of Science. It works well.

 

[arildno]

Given that the Pope may be right when he says that condoms won't solve the problem,

Condom usage has significantly reduced the AIDS infection rates in high risk groups like gay men.

Why should it be any differently for other sexual sub-populations??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you bothered to read the referenced statements you would know.

Maybe that's Dawkin's problem: He doesn't bother to get the facts. He is far more interested in taking cheap shots for the purposes of profitting through ignorance.

 

[arildno]

What nonsense.

Condom usage WORKS.

That people do not choose to use condoms, and therefore get infected is not at all an argument against condom usage.

 

[siddharth]

Except for the fact that he seems to have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He is no more qualified to comment on religion than the Pope is to discuss String Theory.

Perpetuating hate and scorn based in ignorance is doing no one a favor. What he is doing helping to further divide a nation [if not the world] through misconception and fear. He is playing to the lowest common denominator.

I have to disagree with you entirely. As Dawkins is a scientist, I think he's far more qualified to comment on the effect of religious claims on the real world, when compared to the pope. I think he knows exactly what he's talking about, when it comes to religion.

Also, I also don't think he's perpetuating hate by pointing out what he thinks are the irrational beliefs of a large number of people. Arguing against the ideas of people with words isn't inciting hatred. I think you're mistaking his passion with hatred.

Based on Moonbear's statement and the post that I made earlier about the young African man, the Pope may understand the situation far better than Dawkins does;

Based on the previous comments of the pope(s), and the catholic church as a whole on the issue of sex education (for example, their emphasis on abstinence only education, which simply doesn't work), I disagree with that.

Also, all this discussion is simply anecdotal. Point is, there have been studies presented which claim to show that increased condom use has lead to a direct decline in HIV/AIDS prevalence in Africa. I think that the medical journal the Lancet, also agreed with Dawkins point of view when it comes to the science.

I understand that the problem in Africa is a complex issue, and that simply promoting condom use alone might not work, but I think that the pope's latest comments were driven by his ideology, rather than science. For instance, his comments that

[HIV/AIDS] a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem
...
the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids

I agree with Dawkins, the Lancet, and many others, that those comments are distorting the science.

Although I haven't made that claim, I think perhaps you would call me "extremely ignorant" as well for raising the possibility?

Well, as you pointed out, the only way that can happen is if the distribution of condoms directly increases the sexual activity of the public. I don't think there's any evidence of that published? Also, I think the numbers are that the use of condoms reduces the transmission rate by 80%.

he latter is obvious by economics: any decrease in 'price' for a standard* good increases the quantity consumed.

I disagree with this (After all, it is an economic theory :p). You're assuming that people make perfectly rational choices. Searching in google, gives me a list of empirical studies which show that availability of condoms does not increase sexual activity.

 

[humanino]

If you bothered to read the referenced statements you would know.

Maybe that's Dawkin's problem: He doesn't bother to get the facts. He is far more interested in taking cheap shots for the purposes of profitting through ignorance.

Honestly, I have had my share of feedback about this statement from people actually working with populations there, and none of them would actually support the statement. Now several days later here in this very thread I can read claims that informed people may actually think otherwise. To me this is what has been invented, it took a few days to fabricate a plausible argumentation :tongue2:

Anyway, even if the pope had it right randomly once, it would not excuse the church for its usual poor understanding of Science in general.

 

[Moonbear]

That people do not choose to use condoms, and therefore get infected is not at all an argument against condom usage.

It IS an argument against prevention strategies that rely on condom usage though. If you KNOW you are dealing with a population who will not use condoms, no matter how much you educate them about their effectiveness, then spending a lot of money purchasing and shipping and distributing cases of condoms to that community just to sit around in the sun until they expire is a huge waste of money that could be directed toward something more likely to be effective for that group of people...like making sure those who are already infected can get enough of the drugs to treat them so they do not have gaps in treatment that lead to increasing resistance to the drugs. If drug resistant strains of the virus are being allowed to rapidly develop because there is no consistent access to those drugs, and people are already on second line drugs and developing resistance to them as well, and these are the same people who are frequently traveling between multiple countries, and 50% of those infected with HIV in these countries also have TB infections, for which there is developing a high incidence of extreme drug resistant TB, that is far more of a public health crisis than can be addressed by handing out condoms.

HIV is affecting both city and rural populations. It is relatively easy to get to and treat and educate the city populations. For those in the rural populations, it is much more difficult. When the people showing up to clinics have a two day WALK to get there, because there aren't roads and there aren't vehicles, and live in a hot climate not particularly compatible with proper storage conditions for condoms, it's not just a matter of teaching people to pop down to the corner drugstore or local free clinic to pick up condoms when they need them, nor is it a matter of just dropping a case load of condoms into random villages and hoping they'll get used.

The Pope may have been speaking from a purely religious perspective, but Dawkin's is lashing out from a purely anti-religious perspective. Neither is being scientific in considering the effectiveness of condoms in regions where HIV/AIDS remain most prevalent.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.condomman.com/articles/condom-use/south-africa-condom-recall-concerns-experts/

Apparently there is a issue with condom reliability.


http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm
Article regarding HIV/AIDS in Africa. Apparently the overall rate of transmission has decreased slightly though numbers have dropped and increased varyingly in different areas across the continent.

I haven't found any statistics particularly related to condom availability and spread of the disease though if I did I'm fairly certain that it would one way or another come from a source with a biased interest. I saw a comment somewhere stating that supposedly the availability of condoms is greatest in regions where the pandemic is most intense. Perhaps this is the information that the Pope has been supplied with. The intensely religious often do seem to have trouble with the whole correlation/causation problem.

 

[NeoDevin]

It IS an argument against prevention strategies that rely [solely] on condom usage though.

Fixed.

then spending a lot of money purchasing and shipping and distributing cases of condoms to that community just to sit around in the sun until they expire

I suppose you have a reference showing that any of them have expired before being given out? How about a reference showing that a significant fraction of them have expired?

like making sure those who are already infected can get enough of the drugs to treat them so they do not have gaps in treatment that lead to increasing resistance to the drugs. If drug resistant strains of the virus are being allowed to rapidly develop because there is no consistent access to those drugs, and people are already on second line drugs and developing resistance to them as well, and these are the same people who are frequently traveling between multiple countries, and 50% of those infected with HIV in these countries also have TB infections, for which there is developing a high incidence of extreme drug resistant TB, that is far more of a public health crisis than can be addressed by handing out condoms.

Agreed.

The Pope may have been speaking from a purely religious perspective, but Dawkin's is lashing out from a purely anti-religious perspective. Neither is being scientific in considering the effectiveness of condoms in regions where HIV/AIDS remain most prevalent.

The Pope said condom use worsens the spread of HIV, which is either ignorant, stupid, or wicked. Dawkins will take any chance to insult religion, true, but it's generally it's because the religion makes it so easy, by saying/doing things as ignorant as this.

 

[epenguin]

QUOTE=Moridin;2143186

"The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim."

Outrageous!

According to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/the_pope_is_either_stupid_igno.php" , Dawkins was misquoted in the telegraph, and what he actually said was "The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or wicked."

Oh, that's all right then.

 

[Dr.D]

The Pope's point was that the use of condoms encourages promiscuity through a false sense of security. He made this pretty clear in what he originally said if you paid any attention to his original statement.

Now, why would anybody care about anything that Richard Dawkins said about anything?

 

[siddharth]

The Pope's point was that the use of condoms encourages promiscuity through a false sense of security. He made this pretty clear in what he originally said if you paid any attention to his original statement.

However, the evidence available doesn't seem to agree with that claim.

 

[rootX]

The Pope's point was that the use of condoms encourages promiscuity through a false sense of security. He made this pretty clear in what he originally said if you paid any attention to his original statement.

Someone posted this before, but here's what Pope is suggesting (other than criticizing condoms use):

The Pope said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence rather than condoms, and that "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7951839.stm

So, he wants more people to join the church

I think condoms are much better than what Pope is suggesting.

 

[humanino]

Come on...

The Pope said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence

Did he also mention that to solve the current economic crisis, it is enough that everybody behaves honestly ?

 

[BobG]

It took the church establishment more than 350 years to officially concede that the Earth rotates around the Sun (they did it in 1992). By the time they make an official statement that indeed they have hurt millions with this comment on condoms, AIDS will already be considered a disease of the past.

That's not true. No later than 1822, the Catholic church acknowledged that the Earth rotates around the Sun. It took until 1992 to apologize for their treatment of Galileo.

I think the only reason the church ever even dealt with celestial mechanics at all is because there was a controversy over Galileo. I don't believe the church has ever officially conceded that gravity exists, that elecromagnetic waves exist, or that transistors can amplify an electronic signal - nor did they have an official position on whether the heliocentric or the geocentric theories were correct (their beef was with Galileo, personally).

Their position on condoms is a completely different situation, as the church actually does have official positions on sex and birth control. In other words, the church would never make an official statement saying their policy hurt millions unless the church, itself, underwent radical belief changes.

I think a more honest way for them to present their case would be to say that there should be bad consequences for sin. I don't think that would go over all that well, either. Some would say the potential bad consequences are the reason religions should believe in abstinence and faithfulness instead of the other way around.

 

[chroot]

I don't really care who calls whom stupid. If Dawkins said Matt Damon or Alec Baldwin was stupid, people would chuckle and move on with their lives, feeling neither outraged nor influenced. Why do we, as a society, still need to tiptoe around religious figures? Some people think the Pope really is dumb. Get over it.

- Warren

 

[arildno]

It IS an argument against prevention strategies that rely on condom usage though.
If you KNOW you are dealing with a population who will not use condoms, no matter how much you educate them about their effectiveness,

But that was NOT the Pope's argument, hence, he certainly should not be given credit for it. Even if discouraging condom use happened to be the smartest strategy around, a foolish argument converging upon that strategy would still be foolish, and the person arguing in such a manner would be..a fool.

 

[arunma]

Now, why would anybody care about anything that Richard Dawkins said about anything?

I try not to pay any attention to angry atheists. I agree with the poster who called him the Rush Limbaugh of science (though I would associate him more with New Atheism, since science isn't atheistic). Actually, this guy makes Limbaugh look good.

What concerns me more is that he's receiving honorary degrees from universities. From what I've looked at in terms of scholarly work, he doesn't seem to be a particularly accomplished scientist. Not that he's a bad scientist, but he doesn't seem to have done anything above and beyond your average professor. This points to a disturbing trend in which people seem to associate science with atheism. There are people out there who whip out their American Atheists clubcard as if it were a scientific PhD. Good science has nothing to do with religious beliefs. You can be a good scientist and believe in witchcraft (in fact, such people exist). What I would like to know is: precisely why is Dawkins being honored here? And if it's for science, precisely what scientific work has he done to merit the honor? Running around and crying about how he hates the god whose existence he rejects doesn't count.

 

[Dr.D]

siddharth, within a few days after the Pope's comment there was a report out of Harvard that supported what he said (I don't have the citation).

 

[signerror]

siddharth, within a few days after the Pope's comment there was a report out of Harvard that supported what he said (I don't have the citation).

Very strange.

Citing several studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 2004, Green said that empirical data does not support the idea that condoms are successful in decreasing the spread of HIV.

“The Pope may be right,” Green said. “The marketing and distribution of condoms won’t solve the problem. Partner fidelity has a much better chance.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527376


Is completely at odds with, e.g., the Lancet:

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal.

But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.

"When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," it said.

"Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm

And yet:

Edward Green, the director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project and senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health,

Could an expert weight in on the merits of the peer-reviewed research being cited - what is the state of knowledge/certainty?

 

[jobyts]

I try not to pay any attention to angry atheists. I agree with the poster who called him the Rush Limbaugh of science (though I would associate him more with New Atheism, since science isn't atheistic). Actually, this guy makes Limbaugh look good.

What concerns me more is that he's receiving honorary degrees from universities. From what I've looked at in terms of scholarly work, he doesn't seem to be a particularly accomplished scientist. Not that he's a bad scientist, but he doesn't seem to have done anything above and beyond your average professor. This points to a disturbing trend in which people seem to associate science with atheism. There are people out there who whip out their American Atheists clubcard as if it were a scientific PhD. Good science has nothing to do with religious beliefs. You can be a good scientist and believe in witchcraft (in fact, such people exist). What I would like to know is: precisely why is Dawkins being honored here? And if it's for science, precisely what scientific work has he done to merit the honor? Running around and crying about how he hates the god whose existence he rejects doesn't count.

Translation from the University website:

The University of Valencia will invest Richard Dawkins as Doctor Honoris Causa next week in recognition of his work as an ethologist, theoretician of evolution and popularizer of Darwinian ideas.

 

[humanino]

No later than 1822, the Catholic church acknowledged that the Earth rotates around the Sun. It took until 1992 to apologize for their treatment of Galileo.

I stress the official statement. All (easy) references I find on the web indicate the contrary. For instance from wikipedia on Heliocentrism

"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448

Please, I would appreciate if you can clarify and provide a better reference.