Richard Dawkins

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

He doesn't understand the Dawkins rap though.

... just tell me whose side it's on. ...

Kind of sums it all up, really.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
If only he was more of a humourist.

Actually, I do think he is getting less strident (perhaps that spin doctor is doing some good after all!)
Quote:
“They are not burning my books yet. It would be rather fun if they did,” he said last week.

Yeah, I wonder if he's mellowing too. He appeared on Dr Who the other week, and considering what he has said in the past about fictionial tv shows featuring bad science, I would have thought that any episode of Who would have had him breaking out in hives. Maybe Lalla nagged him into it.

He has, however, made dark hints about doing something extremely cynical in order to win a Templeton prize. So if he should start talking about how he has finally found god ... don't gloat too soon.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I appreciate this could go in a number of threads but what I like about this story is the way it confuses the Daily Mail - do they criticise the anti-religious Dawkins or do they side with the Islam-bashing, PC-baiting one? They don't know whether to have a hard-on or an outraged hard-on.

Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for 'importing creationism' into classrooms

Devout Muslims are importing creationist theories into science and are not being challenged because of political correctness, one of the country's most famous scientists said tonight.

Professor Richard Dawkins argued that as a result teachers were promoting the 'mythology' of creationism over the science of evolution.

Professor Dawkins, a geneticist and author of the best-selling book The God Delusion, said: 'Islam is importing creationism into this country.

Richard Dawkins: 'Teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.'

'Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.

'Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with.

'The Government could do more but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.

'The Government - particularly under Tony Blair - thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing.'

He added: 'It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.

'It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country because if you do you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.'

According to the Koran, Allah created the heavens and Earth in six days.

Christian creationists also believe that God created the world in six days, as described in the Old Testament, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

According to evolution, we are the result of billions of years of gradual changes, shaped by the most advantageous genes and traits being passed from generation to generation.

Professor Dawkins, who holds the chair for the understanding of science at Oxford, called for evolution to be introduced into lessons from the age of eight.

Asked what should happen if parents do not approve, he said: 'For parents to deprive their children of an educational opportunity because of a traditional bigotry is unfair on the child.

'It is fine to teach children about scientific controversies.

'What is not fine is to say, 'There are these two theories. One is called evolution, the other is called Genesis'. 'If you are going to say that, then you should talk about the Nigerian tribe who believe the world was created from the excrement of ants.'

Evolution is taught at secondary school and ministers insist creationism is not part of the curriculum. The syllabus does, however, encourage its discussion.

Professor Dawkins's criticism echoes the concerns of Dr Rowan Williams who has said the creation story was not worth teaching alongside that of evolution.

The Archbishop for Canterbury added that classroom work should include the Bible only when 'discussing what creation means'.

The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, has also criticised the teaching of creationist theories at some of the academy schools pioneered by Mr Blair.

It said: 'Young people are being poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote religious beliefs.'

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said teachers had the 'flexibility to tailor teaching to pupils' needs and aspirations'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

 

[ihatethatmonkee3]

Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for 'importing creationism' into classrooms

What I like about this story is the way it confuses the Daily Mail - do they criticise the anti-religious Dawkins or do they side with the Islam-bashing, PC-baiting one? They don't know whether to have a hard-on or an outraged hard-on.

Devout Muslims are importing creationist theories into science and are not being challenged because of political correctness, one of the country's most famous scientists said tonight.

Professor Richard Dawkins argued that as a result teachers were promoting the 'mythology' of creationism over the science of evolution.

Professor Dawkins, a geneticist and author of the best-selling book The God Delusion, said: 'Islam is importing creationism into this country.

so that's where they've been hiding the bombs and guns! it's been wrapped up inside their imports of a religious notion! is it just me, or does this smack of desperation to be included in a discussion on the effects of multiculturaism on british society?

Richard Dawkins: 'Teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.'

'Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.

surely the point of education at a young age.isn't it when you're older that you should feel free to question what you know?

'Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with.

'The Government could do more but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.

i do kinda agree with him on that, but not in such a blatentl xenophobic way. the fact is that many great countries are built on immigrants - america and austrailia being the prime examples - and the influx of afro-carribean people and those from indian and pakistan in the 50s/60s has helped shape britain into the great country it was when labour came to power. the problem has been since then, with people coming here and not being expected to integrate inot our society, causing secularism, which then creates racial disharmony.

'The Government - particularly under Tony Blair - thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing.'

and installing atheism into the minds of young children isn't?

He added: 'It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.

'It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country because if you do you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.'

not true, the majority of muslims in this country can take constructive criticisms about their faith, it is when those comments reach extreme islamic people that problems are made, not by the people who have said something against islam, but by the extreme islamics themselves.

According to the Koran, Allah created the heavens and Earth in six days.

Christian creationists also believe that God created the world in six days, as described in the Old Testament, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

According to evolution, we are the result of billions of years of gradual changes, shaped by the most advantageous genes and traits being passed from generation to generation.

Professor Dawkins, who holds the chair for the understanding of science at Oxford, called for evolution to be introduced into lessons from the age of eight.

Asked what should happen if parents do not approve, he said: 'For parents to deprive their children of an educational opportunity because of a traditional bigotry is unfair on the child.

*high pitched voice* hypocrite!

'It is fine to teach children about scientific controversies.

yes, even if they don't have the capacity to understand it....

'What is not fine is to say, 'There are these two theories. One is called evolution, the other is called Genesis'. 'If you are going to say that, then you should talk about the Nigerian tribe who believe the world was created from the excrement of ants.'

if yo're not going to teach evolution with creationism, then surely you could be said to not be teaching a theory, you are then teaching a fact as you are offering no counter theory for it?

Evolution is taught at secondary school and ministers insist creationism is not part of the curriculum. The syllabus does, however, encourage its discussion.

i cannot remember being forcefed the notion that god created us at school, either at primary or secondary level. in fact, it never came up at a secondary level of education, and if i have been brainwashed into believing the creationist theory, then surely i would not be an atheist.

Professor Dawkins's criticism echoes the concerns of Dr Rowan Williams who has said the creation story was not worth teaching alongside that of evolution.

The Archbishop for Canterbury added that classroom work should include the Bible only when 'discussing what creation means'.

The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, has also criticised the teaching of creationist theories at some of the academy schools pioneered by Mr Blair.

It said: 'Young people are being poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote religious beliefs.'

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said teachers had the 'flexibility to tailor teaching to pupils' needs and aspirations'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

the problem being that blair was bush's little lap dog, and bush has a direct line to God, so when bush started "outlawing" evolution theories in schools, blair did what he could, knowing full well that he would not be able to get away with doing what bush had.

as for what the person at the DCSF said, we've got teachers who, if they're not afraid that their pupils are going to stab, are extremely overworked in overcrowded classrooms. in order to be flexible enough to then tailor the teachings to the childrens needs, they would have to be Mr. fantastic.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

so that's where they've been hiding the bombs and guns! it's been wrapped up inside their imports of a religious notion! is it just me, or does this smack of desperation to be included in a discussion on the effects of multiculturaism on british society?

Not really. His comments on Islam have been purloined from a much wider interview on Darwin given to promote a programme on C4 tonight.

Richard Dawkins: 'Teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.'

'Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.

surely the point of education at a young age.isn't it when you're older that you should feel free to question what you know?

Perhaps but there's a big difference between education and indoctrination. Being able to reproduce certain language or numeracy skills is evidence of education and is undeniably useful to people of all backgrounds. Being able to follow the rituals or relate without wisdom the laws laid down by a deity, imagined or otherwise, is rarely so.

i do kinda agree with him on that, but not in such a blatentl xenophobic way. the fact is that many great countries are built on immigrants - america and austrailia being the prime examples - and the influx of afro-carribean people and those from indian and pakistan in the 50s/60s has helped shape britain into the great country it was when labour came to power. the problem has been since then, with people coming here and not being expected to integrate inot our society, causing secularism, which then creates racial disharmony.

I don't think he's being blatantly xenophobic, I think he's criticising the fanaticism of the government's approach to multiculturalism. He's not criticising immigration or multicuralism only the absolutist and exaggerated way in which some people implement it. I'm not sure how secularism creates racial disharmony, either. Surely supremacist notions - and they often accompany religious belief - do that?

and installing atheism into the minds of young children isn't?

Is he advocating that, though? You don't really need to teach a young child anything about theology since they're not really capable of understanding anything but the most basic elements. He's not advocating atheism as a prescribed substitute to the religion of any child's parents.

not true, the majority of muslims in this country can take constructive criticisms about their faith, it is when those comments reach extreme islamic people that problems are made, not by the people who have said something against islam, but by the extreme islamics themselves.

Again he's not said that most Muslims perceive it as racist only that some people, not neccessarily Muslims, will object. Television adverts often get removed due to the complaints of a few dozen of the millions of viewers who see it - you don't need to have the numbers on your side when criticism takes to the airwaves or the printed page.

*high pitched voice* hypocrite!

Why - he's not advocating the removal of religious study from schools, only from the science class.

yes, even if they don't have the capacity to understand it....

If they don;t understand it then they don't understand it, it's no big deal. Surely that's better than forcing a child to believe something even when they don't understand it?

if yo're not going to teach evolution with creationism, then surely you could be said to not be teaching a theory, you are then teaching a fact as you are offering no counter theory for it?

In science the term 'theory' has a different meaning, though. Evolution as a theory in this sense is one that has a far higher degree of factuality about it other than the relativistic view that all theories are equal.

Evolution is taught at secondary school and ministers insist creationism is not part of the curriculum. The syllabus does, however, encourage its discussion.

i cannot remember being forcefed the notion that god created us at school, either at primary or secondary level. in fact, it never came up at a secondary level of education, and if i have been brainwashed into believing the creationist theory, then surely i would not be an atheist.

He's obviously talking about different times and people of a different background to you, though. And in these different times people of a different time are treated with too much sensitivity, or so his argument goes.

the problem being that blair was bush's little lap dog, and bush has a direct line to God, so when bush started "outlawing" evolution theories in schools, blair did what he could, knowing full well that he would not be able to get away with doing what bush had.

Well that's one argument but I don't think there's a very strong case to suggest Blair was copying Bush - or appeasing him - when it came to education.

 

[colpepper1]

The RD knockabout continues in the letters pages of FT 241. I recently watched a programme by Dawkins on the in-law's gogglebox as they consume a rolling diet of television and we're not regular visitors. At one point he addressed a staffroom of science teachers and upbraided them for not teaching the primacy of the diagnostic method. He closed the segment (and I paraphrase) by saying, 'There we are, teachers are afraid to teach science because they're under pressure from...(the usual suspects)'.

I scanned the room to see if anyone else had noted his summary while choking on my scone. They appeared not have done. What the teachers actually said (again, from memory) was they didn't see it as their job to compete with the beliefs of family members but applied objective scientific principles to everything they taught. No mention of creationism, external pressure or anything else.
The teachers looked nonplussed at Richard Dawkins' suggestion that science should be forced upon pupils who had no particular interest in the subject, much as they might if aesthetic appreciation or literary insight were damanded of everyone passing through the art studio or English lab. It's the kind of 2 +2 =22 'proof' RD specialises in for television shows, a verbal legerdemain that smacks of the snakeoil he rightly condemns.

If he's going to be taken seriously by groups outside the humanist, rationalist and atheist communities he needs to put that broad brush away and use some joined up thinking.

 

[ramonmercado]

I think Dawkins expects science teachers to be some kind of secular priesthood. A bit much to ask of overworked under paid people who have to deal with demonic burocracy in filling out form after form, survey after survey.

But when you see the following, Dawkins attitude becomes more understandable.

Churchman creates creationism controversy - September 12, 2008

As Scientific American put it recently – to the rage of the Discovery Institute – “If it's September, it's time for creationism in schools. That's how some would like it, anyway.”

And so it came to pass after Michael Reiss came out in favour of allowing discussion of creationism in UK science classes. Reiss is director of education at the Royal Society. He is also a minister with the Church of England.

In a speech to the British Association Festival of Science he says:

My central argument of this article is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview.
...
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.

These arguments from Reiss are actually not hugely surprising. His article ‘Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?’ in this month’s edition of Studies in Science Education states, “I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue.”

And his speech is actually not that different to the position he was setting out in 2006 in an interview with the Guardian:

"I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn't put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them," says Reiss.
...following the Royal Society's line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). "There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can't be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution," he explains.

Given the number of journalists at the BA festival though (basically all the science correspondents who weren’t at the LHC), Reiss’s comments were always going to be big news.

Most incensed is the Times, which declares in its lead editorial slot:

Were Professor Weiss to have argued merely that schools should show respect for religious belief, his remarks would be correct and unexceptionable. And were he alone, his views might be counted an idiosyncracy. It is in arguing that creationism has a place in science lessons that the professor has made his error. And unfortunately he is not alone.
...
Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science classes? Please teach science.

The Guardian reports the story thus: “Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.”

It quotes biologist Lewis Wolpert as saying, “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing.”

The Financial Times quotes physicist John Fry: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.”

I’m going on the transcript rather than the speech but this seems to be a misinterpretation of what Reiss is actually saying. Reiss is not arguing for the teaching of intelligent design in science classes a la Palin. He’s saying that when students raise their views you should be willing to discuss them.

Putting intelligent design on school curriculums would be a disaster. But saying to someone ‘you’re wrong, and here’s the evidence’ doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... onism.html

 

[colpepper1]

Where religion competes with science for explanations it's perfectly acceptable for scientists to put their case, for example with evolution. Nit-picking by fundamentalists and flat earther's should not be allowed to influence the focus of a class or divert it with threats and intimidation. Even so Religion isn't only a quest for knowledge and explanation in the way that science is, something Dawkins either ignores or sees as a distraction.

If an individual is predisposed (and I suspect it is a predisposition) to analysis rather than instinct it may lead him to a set of conclusions about the universe but it is only one kind of conclusion. If one is persuaded that life is often nasty, brutish and short, quantum theory may not address that person's immediate needs or aspirations. Whether that gap is filled with ideas of human kindness or hogwash and empty promises seems to be a subjective viewpoint, there is no equivalent to the transcendent and subliminal in the laboratory even if science may ultimately prove such notions exist under a different umbrella.

As science has yet to show what happened in the first milliseconds of the universe, much less the preceding moments (all terms vernacular), Dawkins is asking for a leap of faith from one partial view of it to another. He's basically aligned himself with his own propositions - ignore this and defy me - with ego and persona replacing academic coolness. His classroom strawman was more ringmaster than don.

 

[onlyadownstat]

When I was taught evolution/creation in primary 6, it went something like this:
The universe was created with a big bang. God made that bang and he made it really big. Humans evolved over millions of years, so when Genesis says it only took God six days, it's being metaphorical.

Talk about having your cake and eating it!

 

[colpepper1]

I still say Dawkins is a bossy madam who can't believe any sentient hominid/creature/spirit/deity has superior analytical powers to his own and works backwards from that proposition. If man is all there is and RD is first among equals poetry, art, symbolism and metaphor are in for a good kicking.
The universe will resemble Round Britain Quiz crossed with Ask the Family and Quote, Unquote. Gimme the pointy guy with the straggly beard.

 

[stu neville]

A bit OT - the Radio Times recently gave away audio books of the Narnia series, narrated by Tom Baker - curious irony, he being the ex-husband of Lalla Ward, now Mrs Dawkins. As Frankie Boyle pointed out in last week's Mock the Week, imagine Dawkins reading C S Lewis:

"..so Peter, who didn't actually exist, and Susan, who didn't exist, and Edmund and Lucy, who didn't exist, went out through a wardrobe that didn't exist into Narnia, which didn't exist, and met Aslan, a lion who didn't exist, who represents Christ, who may have existed as an historical person but couldn't have been the son of God as God doesn't exist..."

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

It's all very well having a go at Dawkins for being a bit of a smug know-it all and an arch-skeptic, but the truth is that, for every Dawkins, there's a hundred, perhaps a thousand, fanatics, fundamentalists and fibbers, standing in line, waiting to force their religious nonsense down people's necks.

The best of them may believe in the stuff, it may even help people make sense of the World and give them a unifying force which make them better, more sociable people. But, the worst of these religious types probably have at least an idea that they are deceiving people and using their belief system to control almost every aspect of their followers lives.

Every time I read a piece about social control, thinly disguised as religion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/faithschools

I wonder at the duplicitous hypocrisy. God as the policeman in the sky.

Dawkins most important asset is the fact that he doesn't believe that people need any mental props, beyond Reason, to get by. He may be naive, but at least he's honest.

 

[stu neville]

....Every time I read a piece about social control, thinly disguised as religion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/faithschools

I wonder at the duplicitous hypocrisy. God as the policeman in the sky...

The Bristol Oasis Academy will, as from next September, be sharing some of its premises and students with the secular, and yet at the same time extremely multi-cultural F E college for which I work (we've even got our own Islamic suspected terrorist, I'll have you know.)

Should be interesting....

 

[colpepper1]

Dawkins most important asset is the fact that he doesn't believe that people need any mental props, beyond Reason, to get by. He may be naive, but at least he's honest.

That's certainly true. Unfortunately - and I'll show my prejudices straight off - many hard core rationalists share an almost autistic and terrier like obsession with deductive reasoning that abandons the social systems that surround them. They also deny the multitude of instincts functioning humans are subject to.

Those who agree with Dawkins, speaking purely from personal experience, are apt to be less than magnanimous about their fellow human's failings and happy to care for them at one remove under the orthodoxy of secular humanism rather than up close and personal. The pinnacle of Dawkinsian humanity would be an urbane, western scientist academic of particular habits and linguistic exactitude and the rest of the world can follow or go to pot. Frankly I find that a frighteningly totalitarian prospect.

One hesitates to use such grape shot on one's targets but Dickie started it and I can also site completely honesty in the analysis.

 

[DougalLongfoot]

I find that there is a common perception that athiests arrive at their position through reason and deep thought, whilst people of faith are subject to gullible superstions. I had an athiest once tell me that the reason he didn't believe in God was that since the invention of the aeroplane, humans had proved heaven didn't exist because when you fly above clouds there are no angels with harps sitting on them!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I find that there is a common perception that athiests arrive at their position through reason and deep thought, whilst people of faith are subject to gullible superstions. I had an athiest once tell me that the reason he didn't believe in God was that since the invention of the aeroplane, humans had proved heaven didn't exist because when you fly above clouds there are no angels with harps sitting on them!

There's no accounting for individual judgement, is there?

However, choosing one's own path, without reference to some invisible and unimpeachable, higher, supernatural power, is still that person's choice, however shaky the logic.

When it comes down to it, people like Dawkins are reliant only on their own reasoning and the accumulated wisdom of other equally fallible, human beings, whereas The Pope, President George Dubyah Bush, Sarah 'Pitbull' Palin, the Saudi judge who's decided that satellite TV channel owners can be executed, or President Achmindinnerjacket, can all claim that their God has told them what to do.

They are only obeying orders, from on High and are therefore, not really responsible for their own actions.

 

[escargot]

This reminds me of the discussions one sometimes hears about 'evil'. Specifically, whether some people are just born evil, and are destined from birth to commit horrendous crimes.

If this is so, I reply, then they have not chosen to do these things, and have no free will: we therefore have no right to punish them, because they know no better. We cannot reform them and other 'evil' people cannot be influenced for the good by others' punishment.

It's part of a superstitious demonisation of offenders - they are other, they are different, they are not like us, therefore I am not like them.

So, God made me good, and someone else made 'them' bad. None of it is my fault.

So it's all OK really, and I don't have to worry about it.

 

[colpepper1]

Rationalists share at least one thing with many practicing religious, which is a highly simplistic notion of what God 'is'. If he/she/it exists they will clearly be so far beyond any intellectual or creative realm humanity can consider that perceiving their existence or lack of it through the mechanics of the universe will be fruitless - fascinating endeavour that it undoubtedly is.

An oft cited variation of Occam's shaving kit is one should believe in only sufficient deities required for understanding i.e. zero, which is a reasonable proposition but tells us nothing about whether a progenitor exists or not. A refusal to contemplate possibilities, then make a TV career of vilifying the gaps seems a bit rich, more the kind of thing one might expect of clerics.

 

[lupinwick]

And the whole lot just keeps on fizzing..

Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive".

The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult.

Source

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Rationalists share at least one thing with many practicing religious, which is a highly simplistic notion of what God 'is'. If he/she/it exists they will clearly be so far beyond any intellectual or creative realm humanity can consider that perceiving their existence or lack of it through the mechanics of the universe will be fruitless - fascinating endeavour that it undoubtedly is.

An oft cited variation of Occam's shaving kit is one should believe in only sufficient deities required for understanding i.e. zero, which is a reasonable proposition but tells us nothing about whether a progenitor exists or not. A refusal to contemplate possibilities, then make a TV career of vilifying the gaps seems a bit rich, more the kind of thing one might expect of clerics.

What does all this philosophy mean, to someone who is to be executed for downloading something deemed blasphemous off the internet?

Whether some God, or other, exists, or not, how religious beliefs are applied in the Real World has a real effect on real people's lives.

Occam's razor should not be some Saudi, or Afghani, executioner's sword.

 

[colpepper1]

What does all this philosophy mean, to someone who is to be executed for downloading something deemed blasphemous off the internet?

I quite agree. Lopping hands and heads has nothing to do with a creator and everything to do with vile old bullies hanging onto power. Humankind doesn't need religion to behave in beastly ways as the C20th is evidence to.

 

[rynner2]

Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official website banned in Turkey
Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Friday September 19 2008

A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.

Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.

According to Oktar's office, Istanbul's second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar's personality.

His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."

Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDs to contest Darwin's theory of evolution. In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish book rejecting evolution on every one of its 800 pages.

Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breathtaking inanity of the content". 8)

It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey. In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on the site contained libellous material that it was unwilling to remove. Last April he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.

He failed to ban Dawkins' book The God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion. The God Delusion has provoked strong criticism from believers for insisting on the hypocrisy and unreliability of scripture and for lampooning creationists.

Turkey has a long track record in banning websites, and is particularly fond of blocking YouTube for allegedly offending national sensibilities. The bans have hurt its image at a time when its restrictions on free speech are under scrutiny owing to its EU membership bid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... ion.turkey

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Rationalists share at least one thing with many practicing religious, which is a highly simplistic notion of what God 'is'. If he/she/it exists they will clearly be so far beyond any intellectual or creative realm humanity can consider that perceiving their existence or lack of it through the mechanics of the universe will be fruitless...

How do you know? From what evidence we have of god (ie, none), he/she/it could be anything you want it to be. If you think god is indeed completely beyond any intellectual or creative realm (blah blah blah), then good for you. Likewise, if you think god is a white bearded old man sitting on a shining throne passing judgements, then so be it. The same goes for any other notion of what god might or might not be like - just tick as appropriate: the deist god, who created the conditions for the big bang, and then just left the universe to go its own way; the flying spaghetti monster, perhaps; the 'god' as described in Stephen King's 'It', which was a mega-turtle that vomited up the universe; or even the god as envisioned by Alan Partridge - 'kind of a gas, really.'

In a nutshell, it doesn't really matter of one's notion of god is simplistic or not, because there is no real evidence for god in the first place.

 

[colpepper1]

In a nutshell, it doesn't really matter of one's notion of god is simplistic or not, because there is no real evidence for god in the first place.

What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail? If there is a universal progenitor a divine treasure hunt seems unlikely. It's back to belief/disbelief - don't diss belief if you ain't got none.
Edit: anyway you sidetracked me. I don't hate Dawkins because he's an atheist (some of my best friends, etc). I hate him because he's an up himself squeaky academic. Therefore whatever he says sounds like Violet Elizabeth with a helium overdose and very, very wrong. If he said love one another I'd buy a handgun. He has that effect. Don't come here with your stuff looking for objectivity like that's the cream of emotion.

 

[_Lizard23_]

What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?

I've never quite undestood why it wouldn't though. Or at least a working customer services' number

I've changed my views a bit on Dawkins after reading a couple more of his books - when he's not namedropping and boasting I quite like his writing, but I agree he comes across badly on TV, although ridiculing the pitch of his voice is a bit much IMO .... it's a bit like saying you don't like him because he's got a big arse or something!

Don't come here with your stuff looking for objectivity like that's the cream of emotion.

I don't like the sound of this though - it's hard to know where to start ... is this directed at the previous poster? Are you saying objectivity is bad? That it's an emotion? That some emotions are creamier than others?!

 

[colpepper1]

A little light word play lizard. My real gripe is (as I may have said) is that Dawkins world view places deductive reasoning - and more than that formal western academic scientific rationalism, right at the top of the humanistic Christmas tree.

If you think about the consequences that leaves his views of tribal society as low as those of any pot-boiled Christian missionary, art and poetry completely meaningless (unless highly representative and subject to proven physical laws of representation and of appropriate non-religious imagery) and any nuanced or instinctive emotion as meaningless and indulgent. Even discussing Dawkins leads people to adopt the same snippy didacticism and patrician huff and take bites out of what they consider lesser minds, as though the pinnacle of human achievement is the formal logic of an undergraduate tutorial.

I've yet to meet a defender of his views that isn't formed from exactly the same stock. He has every right to criticise ideas of a deity, though he's less good on religion of which he appears to know very little - a bit of a shocker in an academic - and I've an equal right to suggest metaphors aren't just ideas that are unprovable, hence of no meaning or that myths (even the mythos of science) aren't a key to enlightenment.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?

That is one of the most incredible pieces of sophistry I have ever read. It is utterly wrong, but completely beyond argument at the same time. I can only congratulate you in an unashamedly patronizing way, because quite frankly ... that's all it deserves.

Well done, you. Really. Well done. That was very clever.

 

[ramonmercado]

What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?

That is one of the most incredible pieces of sophistry I have ever read. It is utterly wrong, but completely beyond argument at the same time. I can only congratulate you in an unashamedly patronizing way, because quite frankly ... that's all it deserves.

Well done, you. Really. Well done. That was very clever.

Maybe the eArth isnt all that old. Loki could be planting false evidence. Its what he'd do!

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Maybe the eArth isnt all that old. Loki could be planting false evidence. Its what he'd do

Yep, could be. After all, we can't disprove that Loki is going around planting false evidence.

So it has to be true.

 

[colpepper1]

What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?

That is one of the most incredible pieces of sophistry I have ever read. It is utterly wrong, but completely beyond argument at the same time. I can only congratulate you in an unashamedly patronizing way, because quite frankly ... that's all it deserves.

Well done, you. Really. Well done. That was very clever.

Written like Nu-Puritan bp. If you allow for the possibility of a deity, even the faintest glimmer, there's no reason why the universe should resemble a country house who-dunnit with an answer at the middle rather than say a functioning, self-regulating system.

If the idea of anything non-evidential is anathema, you're responding consistently within a certain paradigm. That doesn't make my statement sophistry or require you to make a value judgement on the proposition. It's just mid C20th philosophical method meeting abstraction, on a web forum. A classical academic tutorial is only one way of approaching the subject as is political brow-beating. Neither necessarily lead to a right answer.