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

[NeoDevin]

Religious conceptions must adapt and transform as we understand the world out there better. And in fact, it appears over the centuries that they do !

That's why we have evolution deniers?

 

[humanino]

That's why we have evolution deniers?

Are you trying to deny my theory by using the exact same method ?

 

[Evo]

It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

?? What scientific revolution was that? And, yes, you need to post a credible source for your comment.

 

[Dr.D]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

 

[mheslep]

I think a better paraphrase of his ideas would be "Science is the one source of knowledge"

That would indeed be a dispassionate summary. Again, Dawkins is not. IMO he has substituted self worship for the worship of the super natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU"
Neil deGrasse to Dawkins, after a typical Dawkins diatribe:
"You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply (paraphrasing another):
"Science is interesting, if you don't agree you can **** off"

 

[humanino]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

The fact that you are aware only of one culture does not mean other ones contributed nothing. What would Newton have done without the zero ?

 

[Evo]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

And they were part of a "Christian" science revolution how? What exactly are you saying Christian churches did to influence the research of these people? And you need to furnish the reference to back yourself up.

 

[superwolf]

I thought religion wasn't allowed to discuss here. Anyway, Dawkins is right as always.

 

[humanino]

I thought religion wasn't allowed to discuss here.

There is a difference between a religious discussion and a discussion about religion. There are often discussion about science too.

 

[Ghost803]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

They built on the founding of countless other before them... And how many of them do you want to bet came from pagan backgrounds in Greece, Egypt, etc...And I have the same question as Evo, how did the Churches or temples ever influence what these people did in their field?

 

[arildno]

This isn't an altogether outrageous idea. Stoicism, which took root in the Hellenistic period, is based on the idea of eliminating 'emotion' (thought to be unwanted movements of the mind) from all decisions-forgive me for what may be a poor job in describing the stoicism movement, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/. Although today ideas have changed, it is generally understood that "too much passion" is a bad thing.

Yawn.
You are pre-supposing what you were to prove, by using the qualifier "too much".

Self-evidently, "too much" of anything is, indeed, "too much".

What you SHOULD do, is to delineate where the line between "much, but appropriate" and "too much" is to be drawn.

 

[Focus]

This is not really so. They deal with entirely different matters, and there is no conflict at all. It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

I feel this is mixing correlation with causation. Just because many of those great scientists were Christians doesn't mean being Christian made them great. They all had long hair too but you don't hear me saying it was the view behind the long hair that caused them to accomplish great achievements.

 

[arunma]

I feel this is mixing correlation with causation. Just because many of those great scientists were Christians doesn't mean being Christian made them great. They all had long hair too but you don't hear me saying it was the view behind the long hair that caused them to accomplish great achievements.

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations. Newton in particular gave God credit for constructing the universe that he studied. A cursory investigation on Wikipedia will show the following assessment:

Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."​

As regards religion, Newton clearly saw science as descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Now, does this demonstrate that being a Christian made Newton a good scientist? It does not. In fact the article also says that Newton was a heretic. However, I cite this to call attention to the fact that many scientists, as well as people on this very forum, seem to tacitly believe that atheism breeds good science. In the past, I've even encountered atheists with no scientific education who think that they understand science simply by virtue of the fact that they are atheists. Forgive my arrogance, but I think that my four years of undergraduate physics, two years of graduate physics, and four years of physics research probably gives me a better scientific understanding than some guy with an American Atheists clubcard.

It has been pointed out that most scientists today are not very religious. This is true, as those of us who work in physics departments can readily testify. However, the existence of religious scientists (of all religious affiliations) makes it difficult to argue that their is any causality between atheism and good science. Much credence has been given to Richard Dawkins, who seems to circumvent logic and claim otherwise. Insodoing, he actually discards the very scientific method that he appears to uphold. I want people here to consider carefully what they are saying. Richard Dawkins is basically the Ann Coulter of atheism. He issues emotionally charged arguments and employs childish, schoolyard taunts. I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a moron (no, that wasn't a schoolyard taunt). I would apply the same logic and state that Richard Dawkins is also a moron.

Are you offended? Is it because Richard Dawkins expresses an opinion that you happen to agree with? If so, then maybe those who love Dawkins and claim to believe in the scientific method should see if they are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

 

[BobG]

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations. Newton in particular gave God credit for constructing the universe that he studied. ...

Now, does this demonstrate that being a Christian made Newton a good scientist? It does not. In fact the article also says that Newton was a heretic. However, I cite this to call attention to the fact that many scientists, as well as people on this very forum, seem to tacitly believe that atheism breeds good science. ...

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

 

[arunma]

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[mgb_phys]

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Rather like how you today have to show that your research either has defence or money making applications - it doesn't mean all physicists today are devout militarists or entrepreneurs

 

[mheslep]

... Much credence has been given to Richard Dawkins, who seems to circumvent logic and claim otherwise. Insodoing, he actually discards the very scientific method that he appears to uphold. I want people here to consider carefully what they are saying. Richard Dawkins is basically the Ann Coulter of atheism. He issues emotionally charged arguments and employs childish, schoolyard taunts. I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a moron (no, that wasn't a schoolyard taunt). I would apply the same logic and state that Richard Dawkins is also a moron.

I agree with much of this post including that there are similarities between a Coulter and Dawkins, but not in the label 'moron'. Neither of them are stupid or moronic. Coulter is an attorney and Dawkins has done distinguished scientific work. Both of them have made good arguments on a number of issues that make vested interests uncomfortable. I'd say their common problem is they've both crossed the line into self serving zealotry, and such a stance then necessarily takes them beyond evidence based argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

That would indeed be a dispassionate summary. Again, Dawkins is not. IMO he has substituted self worship for the worship of the super natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU"
Neil deGrasse to Dawkins, after a typical Dawkins diatribe:
"You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply (paraphrasing another):
"Science is interesting, if you don't agree you can **** off"

Wow! You don't think that's a pretty extreme distortion of the conversation?

The following is a more accurate representation:

Tyson: "You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply: I admit I am and accept your rebuke. But you might be interested to learn that there are actually others that are worse than me at this. Here's an example of one such ... (followed by the New Scientist anecdote).

At no point does Dawkins suggest that Tyson ought to **** off. Nor does Dawkins indicate ever that he even so much as shares the same opinion as the New Scientist editor. He actually cedes the point to Tyson. Besides, even if that were Dawkins' own opinion, rather than someone else's, it would still not provide any evidence for Dawkins being self-serving. Impolite, yes. Self-serving, no.

I am disappointed by the attempt to paint Dawkins as self serving through a distortion of this incident and ask you to please provide us with real examples of this allegedly self-serving (and Dawkins worshipping) agenda that you have repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

 

[BobG]

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Rather like how you today have to show that your research either has defence or money making applications - it doesn't mean all physicists today are devout militarists or entrepreneurs

Exactly.

 

[mheslep]

Wow! You don't think that's a pretty extreme distortion of the conversation?

The following is a more accurate representation:

Tyson: "You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply: I admit I am and accept your rebuke. But you might be interested to learn that there are actually others that are worse than me at this. Here's an example of one such ... (followed by the New Scientist anecdote).

At no point does Dawkins suggest that Tyson ought to **** off.

I didn't intend that implication - an attack on Tyson. I should have included more of the text. The video makes this clear.

Nor does Dawkins indicate ever that he even so much as shares the same opinion as the New Scientist editor.

Now here I think you give him too much credit. I don't take Dawkin's statement as "here's a statement of real radical". No, he makes that statement to show some affinity for it.

He actually cedes the point to Tyson. Besides, even if that were Dawkins' own opinion, rather than someone else's, it would still not provide any evidence for Dawkins being self-serving. Impolite, yes. Self-serving, no.

I am disappointed by the attempt to paint Dawkins as self serving through a distortion of this incident and ask you to please provide us with real examples of this allegedly self-serving (and Dawkins worshipping) agenda that you have repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

Obviously mine is a subjective take, and I point to Tyson's assessment of Dawkins earlier remarks: viewing oneself as the deliverer of truth. That mindset requires a rather fantastic self-elevation.

Edit: Here's some more. Debate w/ geneticist Francis Collins and Dawkins:

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-7,00.html
More of the 'think as I do, all else is folly' egoism. And after hearing quite a bit from Dawkins, I further say BS to his 'sorry' disclaimer, I don't think he's sorry at all.

 

[arunma]

If you lived in medieval (or pre 19C) europe and want to attract patronage (and avoid the interest of the authorities) it was a good idea to put in a few plugs about how your work glorified God.

Do you have any historical evidence to suggest that this was a common practice?

Also, this theory wouldn't explain Issac Newton, since he didn't publish his results until long after he had written them down. As you will recall, this was actually the reason for the controversy with Leibniz over the Calculus. Nor would this explain James Clerk Maxwell, who lived in the 19th century. I don't think any legitimate historian would deny that both Newton and Maxwell were Christians, albeit heretical in the former case.

 

[Gokul43201]

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations.

And that list includes people like Ramanujan, who sought inspiration in Shiva and Vishnu, Pythagoras, who was driven by the belief that his work would determine how his soul would be reincarnated, Al Khwarizmi, who believed that the beauty of algebra was the making of Allah, and any number of the Ancient Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers would have been inspired by Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

So what?

 

[arunma]

And that list includes people like Ramanujan, who sought inspiration in Shiva and Vishnu, Pythagoras, who was driven by the belief that his work would determine how his soul would be reincarnated, Al Khwarizmi, who believed that the beauty of algebra was the making of Allah, and any number of the Ancient Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers would have been inspired by Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

So what?

See my earlier comment.

It has been pointed out that most scientists today are not very religious. This is true, as those of us who work in physics departments can readily testify. However, the existence of religious scientists (of all religious affiliations) makes it difficult to argue that their is any causality between atheism and good science.

I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

 

[NeoDevin]

See my earlier comment.



I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

You list a few names, do no analysis whatsoever, and claim victory... Methinks you need further study if you want to pursue this argument.

 

[jobyts]

Has someone done some research on (in the field of psychology or sociology), why some of the today's scientists are theists? What's Dawkins' take on it?

 

[arunma]

You list a few names, do no analysis whatsoever, and claim victory... Methinks you need further study if you want to pursue this argument.

I didn't claim any conclusive victory (at least not yet). Did I make any statement that you interpreted as such? And besides this, my claim is a negative statement. I would think the burden of proof rests on those who believe that atheism is conducive of good science. I have yet to see any valid argument to the contrary. What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

 

[NeoDevin]

I didn't claim any conclusive victory (at least not yet). Did I make any statement that you interpreted as such? And besides this, my claim is a negative statement. I would think the burden of proof rests on those who believe that atheism is conducive of good science. I have yet to see any valid argument to the contrary. What evidence do you have to suggest that atheism is conducive of good science?

Just reread the thread. Sorry, I got your posts confused with Dr.D, and was thinking you were trying to claim that religion is conducive to good science. I apologize, and redirect my previous post at Dr.D.

Edit: I would also be interested to know if there have been any studies done on religion's impact on science at an individual level. On a societal level it's clear that religion has done a lot to both destroy and preserve science, on different occasions. On an individual level, I wonder if there is any relationship? Do more atheists than theists become scientists? I think so, but what is the relationship? Do theists do better science than atheists? I doubt it. Do atheists do better science than theists? Being an atheist, I'd like to think so, but I doubt it, and all the religious scientists I've met seem to suggest not.

Anyone have detailed information on the subject?

 

[siddharth]

I'm not arguing so much for the correlation of any specific religious affiliation with science so much as I am arguing that there is no causal relationship between atheism and scientific excellence. It seems that your above comments seem to support my argument.

I think an important point to keep in mind was that there was little option to be non-religious during those times. Science was still in its infancy. For example, there wasn't a theory of evolution, or abiogenesis. Then, scientists/people who did not share the view of the church were likely to be oppressed, (like Galileo, Giordano Bruno).

However, while I think that being religious doesn't affect a scientists ability to contribute to science, I think that they must compartmentalize their beliefs (like, Stephen Jay Gould's belief of Non-Overlapping Magisteria between Science and Religion)

I think that the current majority of irreligious scientists is pretty significant. In my opinion (I read this in one of Feynman's books), religion and science are fundamentally opposite because religious beliefs require an 'absolute belief' or faith based on a personal experiences, religious texts, etc while the scientific method requires you to question everything and look at the scientific evidence behind claims. This is why it's my personal opinion that it's difficult for a scientist to be religious (unless one can compartmentalize their views)

 

[arunma]

Just reread the thread. Sorry, I got your posts confused with Dr.D, and was thinking you were trying to claim that religion is conducive to good science. I apologize, and redirect my previous post at Dr.D.

No problem, thank you for clarifying.

Edit: I would also be interested to know if there have been any studies done on religion's impact on science at an individual level. On a societal level it's clear that religion has done a lot to both destroy and preserve science, on different occasions. On an individual level, I wonder if there is any relationship? Do more atheists than theists become scientists? I think so, but what is the relationship?

Data clearly shows that there are by far more atheists and agnostics in science than theists. Combined with the small proportion of atheists in society, this suggests that atheists are more likely to become scientists. But those of us here who are scientists (which I assume is almost all of us) know that correlation doesn't imply causality, so it would be a mistake to draw any conclusion from these data alone.

Do theists do better science than atheists? I doubt it. Do atheists do better science than theists? Being an atheist, I'd like to think so, but I doubt it, and all the religious scientists I've met seem to suggest not.

Anyone have detailed information on the subject?

I too would be interested to see data on this. I don't know if any detailed study has been done yet.

 

[arunma]

I think an important point to keep in mind was that there was little option to be non-religious during those times. Science was still in its infancy. For example, there wasn't a theory of evolution, or abiogenesis. Then, scientists/people who did not share the view of the church were likely to be oppressed, (like Galileo, Giordano Bruno).

With respect, I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions from historical information. If you read the Wikipedia article on Newton, you'll find that he held heretical beliefs. Had he been public about this, he might have gotten in quite a bit of trouble (or maybe not, since his did happen to be a time of great religious upheaval). This goes to show that people of Newton's time weren't under some magic spell that made them believe in some specific doctrine concerning God. In fact, the bad behavior of the Catholic Church would probably lead people to reject its doctrines, if anything. This perhaps is why so many Europeans separated from the Catholic Church during this period.

Concerning Galileo, he would be a bad example if you're examining people being oppressed on the basis of unbelief. Galileo did not in any way reject the existence of God. His trial for heresy was based in part on his heliocentric views, and also on various comments he made about the Catholic Church. None of this had to do with theism.

However, while I think that being religious doesn't affect a scientists ability to contribute to science, I think that they must compartmentalize their beliefs (like, Stephen Jay Gould's belief of Non-Overlapping Magisteria between Science and Religion)

Well, I'd have to disagree there. I'm a theist, I do science, and I don't experience any cognitive dissonance. On the other hand I know atheistic scientists who believe in weird things like crystal magic and astrology (the astrology guy is doing his thesis on astrophysics!), so they clearly do experience cognitive dissonance. Apparently both theists and atheists can be susceptible to the compartmentalization to which you refer.

I think that the current majority of irreligious scientists is pretty significant. In my opinion (I read this in one of Feynman's books), religion and science are fundamentally opposite because religious beliefs require an 'absolute belief' or faith based on a personal experiences, religious texts, etc while the scientific method requires you to question everything and look at the scientific evidence behind claims. This is why it's my personal opinion that it's difficult for a scientist to be religious (unless one can compartmentalize their views)

Thanks for providing your personal opinion. But I feel it necessary to say that this disagrees with my personal experiences. The only religious people I've seen who say that belief in God requires blind faith (i.e. absolute belief) are the mainline Protestant types who don't believe in a God who actually influences the believer's personal life. I've never been told by any of my pastors to avoid reason or critical thought. On the contrary, I have been taught to think critically about matters of faith, and to not believe something just because someone tells me to. As long as we're talking about personal opinions and not scientific data on the matter, I just thought I'd throw that out.