Dawkins defends comments about "Alien Designers".

...life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.


It seems Dick can attempt to explain anything as long as it doesn't include the words "God" or "gods"
Maybe it's just a hang up on terms and time frames.

Thoughts?

...life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.

After a second read I noticed thes two scentences. I think I know what he's getting at but it's weird to see them so close and in the context they're being used.

Dawkins does not defend alien designers. He merely states that Panspermia cannot be an answer as that lifeform would have had to evolve as well.

So? He's making perfect sense here.

Edit: I went to look for the source of this and found something completely different:
http://io9.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video?mail2=true

Edit2: I guess it's actually relevent, since it explains why people are talking about this now. It came out of an interview with Ben Stein, pertaining to his new movie about ID.

It's a direct copy/ paste. What's different?

Edit: Ah,, Ok. I get it.

Anyway, if you've read my posts in the past, you know that Im very interested but have not concluded that either side (Darwinians or Creationists) is 100% correct.
I just think it's funny that he would even entertain the idea of aliens for a second when he's bent on destroying the "flying spaghetti monsters" that we already have. Weird.

The context. Why act surprised that scientists entertain all sorts of absurd notions? That is how we arrive at the truth.

Ah, "the truth", again. I'm so sick of everyone and their self serving truths. Why is it so hard to admit that we don't know? I've never claimed to know "the truth". I guess I'm a real scientist, eh?

Because we do know, we know quite a bit.

Hmm is this the future? Or do I mean the past?

http://www.xfilesfanclub.com/userImages/productImages/IW2B_Mousepad_TRXF1004_lg.jpg

I could ask questions all day that you and I can't answer. Should that imply that I have no place in science? Or am I ahead ,somehow, by admitting a few things are left to be dicovered?

I got chills from reading that first POST.

Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen

:bravo:

I got chills from reading that first POST.



:bravo:

He's probably referring to the fact that amino acid chirality (http://www.panspermia.org/chiral.htm) as seen in the Murchison and Murray meteorites has itself evolved. There is no scientific reason why there should be a greater proportion of L-amino acids in these meteorites.

I could ask questions all day that you and I can't answer. Should that imply that I have no place in science? Or am I ahead ,somehow, by admitting a few things are left to be dicovered?

Science works by questioning everything. Even Dawkins would enjoy considering any evidence for a God. It's a misunderstanding to say that biologists are ideologically attached to any particular explanation. It's just that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and nothing against it (so far).

It's a misunderstanding to say that biologists are ideologically attached to any particular explanation.

Its a mistake to think that biologists are immune from having pet theories either.

Science works by questioning everything. Even Dawkins would enjoy considering any evidence for a God. It's a misunderstanding to say that biologists are ideologically attached to any particular explanation. It's just that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and nothing against it (so far).

Since you have mentioned the (Ben Stein) movie.
I haven't seen it. I probably won't but from what I gather it's about the systematic squelching of any evidence/voices that may suggest anything other than the Darwin way of thinking.
That isn't the science that you describe above. In fact, it's more in line with what religious cults do. And I do believe that it's happening in our schools and that it is destructive when the goal is supposed to be science in it's truest form.

That's because you don't understand what evidence is. Suggesting is fine, but until there is something more than a conjecture, it doesn't qualify as worthy of teaching as science.

Yeah, we all know where evolution lacks evidence, so I won't dwell on it.
Why is an alein race a more acceptable idea to him when there is even less evidence of such a thing? At least theists have human history (and conjecture) on their side. It seems more like a grudge with religion.

He's not trying to make a case for aliens. He's saying that any complex being, such as a designer, even if alien, must also have come about through an evolutionary process.

Yes, and I suspect that that logic doesn't work as well with an omnipotent God figure that governs the very physical laws he's trying ,in theory, to hold himself to.

He's probably referring to the fact that amino acid chirality as seen in the Murchison and Murray meteorites has itself evolved. There is no scientific reason why there should be a greater proportion of L-amino acids in these meteorites. He's arguing against any natural phenomena being evidence for an ultimate designer. I doubt he is asserting an evolutionary process necessarily behind amino acid chirality in meteorites, and if he is he might be wrong - there are a couple of proposed non-evolutionary "scientific" explanations, and some recent work backs them up.
I got chills from reading that first POST. Why ? It's part of standard evolutionary theory, one of Dawkins's areas of interest.
Yes, and I suspect that that logic doesn't work as well with an omnipotent God figure that governs the very physical laws he's trying ,in theory, to hold himself to. Why not?

Of Course aliens are real
they come from mexico!

He's arguing against any natural phenomena being evidence for an ultimate designer. I doubt he is asserting an evolutionary process necessarily behind amino acid chirality in meteorites, and if he is he might be wrong - there are a couple of proposed non-evolutionary "scientific" explanations, and some recent work backs them up.

On re-reading what I wrote, I should rephrase; I believe he's arguing that any "organism" which may have lead to life on earth, regardless of its point of origin, would itself be subject to similar evolutionary processes.

I think he's also talking about any decision maker with the complexity and foresight to create other complexity, not just other biological organisms.

I think he's also talking about any decision maker with the complexity and foresight to create other complexity, not just other biological organisms.

Lets keep his religious notions out of the science forums.

Lets keep his religious notions out of the science forums. That's not a religious notion.

That's not a religious notion.

It is his notion of what the God he rejects, constitutes, in my opinion, and thus is part of his religious notions of atheism.

Why not?

Hi,Ice.
I would say because he likes his job and peer respect. Once you've opened the door you can't shut it.
Placebo effect, stigmata and a few other things prove that the laws of physics have a bit of plasticity if enough faith is applied, yet to say that in a circle of biologists would get you black listed. People can't handle the thought of a god that can change the "rules" at any given time.

Ice have you ever observed anything that can't be explained with text book science? If you have, I doubt you'd tell me for the same reasons.

It is his notion of what the God he rejects, constitutes, in my opinion, and thus is part of his religious notions of atheism. Not all notions about Gods are religious notions. Dawkins's aren't.

What is a "religious notion of atheism" ?
I would say because he likes his job and peer respect. Once you've opened the door you can't shut it. Well, I have no idea what your are talking about.

You claimed that one of the arguments Dawkins uses against a particular conception of Deity's role in creation doesn't work. I asked why not. And you say it's because he likes his job ?

Lets keep his religious notions out of the science forums.

I hope that was a joke.:(

Not all notions about Gods are religious notions. Dawkins's aren't.

What is a "religious notion of atheism" ?

This one clearly is, since he is evangelising a notion he has decided represents God to him.

This one clearly is, since he is evangelising a notion he has decided represents God to him. It's not a religious notion. It's not even a particular notion - his argument applies to an entire category of notions, no one of which (or all together) is being "evangelized" by Dawkins.

Not all notions of Gods are religious, not even if someone decides they are better representations of some Deity than religious ones.

There is an entire world of human thought, behavior, emotion, and meaning, that is not even religious - let alone theistic.

It's not a religious notion. It's not even a particular notion - his argument applies to an entire category of notions, no one of which (or all together) is being "evangelized" by Dawkins.

Not all notions of Gods are religious, not even if someone decides they are better representations of some Deity than religious ones.

There is an entire world of human thought, behavior, emotion, and meaning, that is not even religious - let alone theistic.


The category of notions his argument applies to all fall under a construct that agrees with his opinions of what the context should be.

This is not on topic and SAM is destroying this thread for reasons I can't even pretend to know.

This is not on topic and SAM is destroying this thread for reasons I can't even pretend to know.

It is actually. Dawkins made a comment that he backed up with Crick and Co's theory on panspermia and then used it to promote his ideas against intelligent design. Frankly, I find him as disingenuous as those who use their religious bias in science. He has embraced a notion of God that appeals to his narrow framework as an atheist biologist (with greater emphasis on the atheism and less on the biology). Any religious person doing the exact same thing he is would be booed out of their academic post.

The category of notions his argument applies to all fall under a construct that agrees with his opinions of what the context should be.

Of course he is not commenting on a God that isn't used as an explanation for the complexity of life. The Gods that are used for that purpose are subject to his notion that the source of their complexity must also have accumulated through a natural process. It has to do with logic. If Gods have creative power to work out how a whole ecosystem will work, that inherent complexity must have an explanation.

Well, I have no idea what your are talking about.
Hey, I'm consistant there.:D

You claimed that one of the arguments Dawkins uses against a particular conception of Deity's role in creation doesn't work. I asked why not. And you say it's because he likes his job ?


This thread is about why he would feel the need to clarify publically about what he said in an interview considering he's a authority and why he would complicate it further by adding aliens into the mix.

Then it hit me that aliens are easier to put in a box in that they're mostly thought of as existing with our same physical restraints.

Of course he is not commenting on a God that isn't used as an explanation for the complexity of life. The Gods that are used for that purpose are subject to his notion that the source of their complexity must also have accumulated through a natural process. It has to do with logic. If Gods have creative power to work out how a whole ecosystem will work, that inherent complexity must have an explanation.

Sure, but its not necessarily an explanation derived by a narrow minded application of biology to all ideas.

Then it hit me that aliens are easier to put in a box in that they're mostly thought of as existing with our same physical restraints.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. ;)

Of course, there is no evidence for life on meteorites either.

Sure, but its not necessarily an explanation derived by a narrow minded application of biology to all ideas.

What about logic?

What about logic?

Logic requires an awareness of all variables in an equation. Or isn't that logical?

Richard Dawkins = David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)

Richard Dawkins = David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)I saw David Icke speak at a conference about ten years ago. At the time he was on about a massive worldwide conspiracy that combined the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons and all the usual suspects, but he won the Kook Award by taking it all the way back to Gilgamesh! That is some fertile imagination.

Logic requires an awareness of all variables in an equation. Or isn't that logical?

It's logical to point out the variables that are lacking in the God Hypothesis. If you are using God as an explanation for the complexity of life, and God itself is necessarily complex (having the knowledge to create and predict the interactions of the entire ecosystem), then you have set up a principle- complex things have a complex origin. So what is the complex origin of God's complexity?

Evolution bypasses this, since it has a simple beginning. All that is required is something that copies itself with heredity, and selection forces. This could have started as a result of random chemical interactions. The complexity of life is then accumulated over time.

It's logical to point out the variables that are lacking in the God Hypothesis..

The first principle we learn in biology is that inferences derived from a model design apply solely to the design modelled.

Dawkins made a comment that he backed up with Crick and Co's theory on panspermia and then used it to promote his ideas against intelligent design. I kind of doubt Dawkins ever "backed up" one of his arguments with panspermia theory. Nothing like that appears in anything I've read by him. I've seen him consider panspermia as an example of a scientific hypothesis - - .

He has embraced a notion of God that appeals to his narrow framework as an atheist biologist (with greater emphasis on the atheism and less on the biology). Any religious person doing the exact same thing he is would be booed out of their academic post. He is working with a non-religious approach to the concept of a Deity. No religious person doing that would be kicked off of any faculty except possibly that of a particularly anti-intellectual theological seminary.
Then it hit me that aliens are easier to put in a box in that they're mostly thought of as existing with our same physical restraints.
”
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Let that be a warning to you. The rest of your objections to Dawkins are also on a par with clusterings take on this. Do you also agree, for example, that Dawkins is "defending" earlier comments, in the quote of the OP ?

You seem to think you have attained some kind of insight, in realizing that Dawkins is putting Deity into the "box" of scientifically approachable physical and historical reality. Hello ?
Logic requires an awareness of all variables in an equation. And an adherence to certain rules in their employment.
The first principle we learn in biology is that inferences derived from a model design apply solely to the design modelled. The second would be that some models are better than others - one needs criteria, of course.

Dawkins is comparing different modellings of a single "design" (difficult for humans to avoid certain preconceptions, no?). He thinks there are serious problems with a class of them.

I kind of doubt Dawkins ever "backed up" one of his arguments with panspermia theory. Nothing like that appears in anything I've read by him. I've seen him consider panspermia as an example of a scientific hypothesis - - .

Based on what?

He is working with a non-religious approach to the concept of a Deity. No religious person doing that would be kicked off of any faculty except possibly that of a particularly anti-intellectual theological seminary.

He's considering an athiestic approach to science.

Let that be a warning to you. The rest of your objections to Dawkins are also on a par with clusterings take on this. Do you also agree, for example, that Dawkins is "defending" earlier comments, in the quote of the OP ?

No I believe he was entertaining alien seeding of the earth as a scientific hypothesis. :rolleyes:

You seem to think you have attained some kind of insight, in realizing that Dawkins is putting Deity into the "box" of scientifically approachable physical and historical reality. Hello ?

Hardly insight. I was just clarifying to clusteringflux, the direction of my arguments.


And an adherence to certain rules in their employment.

Yup/

The second would be that some models are better than others - one needs criteria, of course.


Better? In what context? A model is designed for a limited purpose. No model can claim to address all parts of an equation.

Dawkins is comparing different modellings of a single "design" (difficult for humans to avoid certain preconceptions, no?). He thinks there are serious problems with a class of them.

You mean he is adding another model to the existing models and pretending his model provides a unique insight based on spurious claims?

He's considering an athiestic approach to science. He's considering the scientific approach (to other things) as inherently atheistic, and theistic approaches as inherently unscientific.

No I believe he was entertaining alien seeding of the earth as a scientific hypothesis. Exactly.
Hardly insight. I was just clarifying to clusteringflux, the direction of my arguments. As matching the direction of his arguments, yes. I agree.

Do you also match his take on the OP quote - that it was a "defense" by Dawkins of earlier remarks ?
Better? In what context? In the context at hand, of course, whatever that might be. Do you disagree that some models are better than others, in the context at hand and by the criteria suitable ?
You mean he is adding another model to the existing models and pretending his model provides a unique insight based on spurious claims? No. I mean that he is claiming that a class of models has serious flaws for the context we are in, and making his case for that.

He's considering the scientific approach (to other things) as inherently atheistic, and theistic approaches as inherently unscientific.

Yes, an atheistic approach to science.


Exactly.

As matching the direction of his arguments, yes. I agree.

Do you disagree that some models are better than others, in the context at hand and by the criteria suitable ? .

I don't think you can compare models designed with different end points in view. Again, better in what sense?


No. I mean that he is claiming that a class of models has serious flaws for the context we are in, and making his case for that

Yeah he is creating a model based on lack of evidence. And calling it science. And strangely enough, it is inspiring to all those who believe in lack of evidence. A religion even. When without falsifiability, not only is it not science, its not even logic.

He's considering the scientific approach (to other things) as inherently atheistic, and theistic approaches as inherently unscientific.He occasionally makes sense.Yes, an atheistic approach to science.And what, praytell, would be "theistic approaches to science"? A null set?

The fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories logically from observations of that behavior. The fundamental premise of theism is that a supernatural universe exists which is largely unobservable and not bound by logic, and the denizens of that universe ("gods") can capriciously affect events in the natural universe so that its behavior cannot be well understood or reliably predicted, so that our only recourse to gaining peace of mind is an irrational faith that we will someday gain admission to that supernatural universe where all will finally be revealed.

How can these two premises be reconciled into a single mode of scholarship, when each denies the other?

He occasionally makes sense.And what, praytell, would be "theistic approaches to science"? A null set?

The fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories logically from observations of that behavior. The fundamental premise of theism is that a supernatural universe exists which is largely unobservable and not bound by logic, and the denizens of that universe ("gods") can capriciously affect events in the natural universe so that its behavior cannot be well understood or reliably predicted, so that our only recourse to gaining peace of mind is an irrational faith that we will someday gain admission to that supernatural universe where all will finally be revealed.

How can these two premises be reconciled into a single mode of scholarship, when each denies the other?

I think we should limit science to what can be empirically observed, tested and replicated, rather than limiting academic seats to atheists who explore the scientific basis of God.

I saw David Icke speak at a conference about ten years ago. At the time he was on about a massive worldwide conspiracy that combined the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons and all the usual suspects, but he won the Kook Award by taking it all the way back to Gilgamesh! That is some fertile imagination.


Icke is a fruitcake for sure.

But Dawkins is heading in the same direction if he doesn't lay off the gas.

Dawkins didn't say anything strange or incorrect.

Not strange for Dawkins, yet IMO saying that any creator would require evolution is a strange arguement in itself. It's a roundabout way to make the point and never rules out "Aleins" in the end.The more I think about it, it's easy to see why the other side would run with it.

Blimey, is this thread still rumbling on? Here's the context - basically, he was duped by a load of ID loonies into musing on a theoretical intelligent creator for the universe.
For the same reason, I shall not discuss the main message of the film -- that American creationist scientists are being victimized for their views -- except to say that it was very much NOT its main message when the film was called Crossroads, and when I, together with PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and others, were conned into taking part.
And an explanation of his panspermia hypothesis, in his own own words:
Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
Here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins) for the full amusing story.

Blimey, is this thread still rumbling on? Here's the context - basically, he was duped by a load of ID loonies into musing on a theoretical intelligent creator for the universe.

And an explanation of his panspermia hypothesis, in his own own words:

Here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins) for the full amusing story.

Oh have you seen the film?

No?

Then may I introduce the term "publicity"? :rolleyes:

You may. And you may also indicate "publicity" for whom.

You may. And you may also indicate "publicity" for whom.

Does it matter? Everyone can grab a bite. :p

Frankly, it looks like a Fitna on evolution.

Stein has publicly denounced the theory of evolution, which he and other intelligent design advocates term "Darwinism," declaring it to be "a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies," "the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism," and the inspiration for the Holocaust.[16][17] Stein does not say belief in the theory of evolution alone leads to genocide, but that it is a necessary component.[18] He co-wrote and stars in an upcoming film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which links evolution to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and portrays advocates of intelligent design as victims of discrimination by the scientific community, which has widely rejected intelligent design as pseudoscience. [19] Two of the pro-evolution scientists interviewed for Expelled claim that they were interviewed under false pretenses. One, PZ Myers, alleges the quotes are edited in a way that misrepresents his original statements but Myers was unable to see the film as he was told to leave the premises immediatly when he tried to see it so he cannot know for sure.[20][21] The other, prominent skeptic and Scientific American writer Michael Shermer, has viewed the film and complains that his view was manipulated, and that he had suspected something was amiss due to Stein's "odd" behavior during filming

He sounds like a right cad. It looks like a major own goal for the ID loonies.

(And they are loonies - aren't they sam? Scientists they are not - as you well know. Strictly a case of cart before horse - yes?)

He sounds like a right cad. It looks like a major own goal for the ID loonies.

(And they are loonies - aren't they sam? Scientists they are not - as you well know. Strictly a case of cart before horse - yes?)

But...but...but.. he's arguing (http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/) for freedom of enquiry <sound of bugles>

I’m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.

America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.

A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.

Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.

This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.

Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.

Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.

Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.

In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.

They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.

Quite.

Give to Science what is Science's and to God what is God's.

I'm divided on the issue that Ben Stein is bringing up because of the rising discrimination against theists in science in terms of tenure, funding and publication, regardless of merit.

I'm divided on the issue that Ben Stein is bringing up because of the rising discrimination against theists in science in terms of tenure, funding and publication, regardless of merit.
Examples of this upwards trend?

Examples of this upwards trend?

Ask any theist in science. :shrug:

My old university, Oxford, which was founded by monks, friars and theologians nine centuries ago, was until recently regarded as a bastion of old-fashioned Christianity and, as such, was called "the house of lost causes." Today a publicly expressed belief in Christianity is likely to lower your chance of landing a job at Oxford.

Religion has become a handicap in university life, especially in certain subjects. In philosophy, for example, academics who hope for senior chairs keep mum about any faith they hold. God and promotion do not mix. And in all the sciences, young men and women with religious backgrounds are advised to jettison their Christian, Jewish or other religious baggage if they want to pursue careers in physics, chemistry or biology. The universal assumption seems to be that a belief in God fatally debars a scholar from acquiring scientific knowledge. In Britain the number of students concentrating in the sciences is on the decline, and the systematic discouragement of Christians and Jews in the science faculties will clearly increase that trend.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1008/027.html


edit: deleted the quote on Gonzales after reading this

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez

Ah yes. The Gonzalez fellow. I too found, on looking him up, that his case isn't as clear-cut as your quote implied. He's a bit rubbish, apparently, but also deeply enmeshed within the ID movement (and it is a movement, isn't it, with a clearly-defined agenda). For instance, he's a Senior Fellow here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) and contributes to a magazine published by him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_to_Believe). In other words he's a fairly controversial figure and one can't entirely blame the ISU for seeking less risky alternatives.

But, looking at it in more general terms: the problem is that the whole issue has become such a hot potato that it's very difficult to seperate the science from the politics. Films like Expelled just add more fuel to the flames and are hardly likely to make things easier for theist scientists who just want to get on with their jobs. Make an issue of it and any scientific considerations get buried in the political fallout. I do accept that the science establishment seems unwilling to even entertain the notion of an intelligent designer but I think that, again, is a consequence of powerful lobby groups forcing the agenda. It seems to me that the theistically-inclined would do well to leave the whole area alone, keep the faith, and hope for a time when these things can be discussed in a less hysterical atmosphere.
Today a publicly expressed belief in Christianity is likely to lower your chance of landing a job at Oxford.
Then play smart and don't express it until you've made yourself indispensable. :shrug: If a paedophile goes for a job at a school he's hardly likely to get it if he waxes lyrical about the joy of bumming small boys. That might get him a job in the Catholic Church - in fact, he'll probably find himself being rapidly promoted to a senior position - but it's the kind of thing that a more respectable establishment just might frown on! The parallels with those of a theistic bent entering the halls of scientific institutions are clear, the lessons waiting to be drawn.

(ok, ok, fine.:rolleyes: Try this, then. There are laws against religious discrimination. I can only heartily recommend that anyone so discriminated against should get on the big white telephone and call in the Big Fella's legal team. ok!??)

If a paedophile goes for a job at a school he's hardly likely to get it if he waxes lyrical about the joy of bumming small boys. That might get him a job in the Catholic Church - in fact, he'll probably find himself being rapidly promoted to a senior position - but it's the kind of thing that a more respectable establishment just might frown on! The parallels with those of a theistic bent entering the halls of scientific institutions are clear, the lessons waiting to be drawn.


Since of course, atheists are paragons of the scientific method and promoting godlessness is devoid of the perils of belief. (http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm#1) :rolleyes:

Ah, I see you got hung up on the bumming minors thing there. Bad example?

There are issues that need addressing here. There are unresolved conflicts. I have no idea what the solution is. Maybe you do? :)

Ah, I see you got hung up on the bumming minors thing there. Bad example?

There are issues that need addressing here. There are unresolved conflicts. I have no idea what the solution is. Maybe you do? :)

Mostly that it has to go clearly and probably horrifically downhill before enough people will pay attention to it. Meanwhile, nutjobs on either end of the spectrum are having a field day.

Well just look at this sentence:

"Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen."

That was a slip, well i think that guy Darkins said it but they seem (what are they called?Evolutionists) to leave that part out on their blogs. And thank god for blogs, where would we be without those? yawn. Either way, that is really what it all boils down to and that stick in their side like a thorn.

Honestly, Darkins doesnt really impress me. I do like Ben Stein though, because he is funny and he was in Ferris Bueller. I went to his site Darkinsses site and it just like these angry peoplle telling me what to believe, when they dont even know themselves. Just 'believe this, or we will chop your fucking head of' well they wont chop it off literraly but who know they might if given the opportunity and if they could get away with it.

And the movie, looks interesting. People making money all around- on both sides, at least Ben is not trying to control my mind. Because that cannot be done.:)

Whatever happened to the desire for privacy? Once upon a time people went to work to do a job. Politics, religion, the size of one's underpants..... were not relevant to the tasks at hand and therefore kept out of the workplace. One's beliefs, on religion, politics, the size of someone else's underpants were kept to oneself and that state of affairs would be encouraged.

oh, oh oh those glory days

Whatever happened to the desire for privacy? Once upon a time people went to work to do a job. Politics, religion, the size of one's underpants..... were not relevant to the tasks at hand and therefore kept out of the workplace. One's beliefs, on religion, politics, the size of someone else's underpants were kept to oneself and that state of affairs would be encouraged.

oh, oh oh those glory days

Somebody left the closets open. (You forgot sexual preferences)

yeah, i coudnt imagine what they would do to gene roddenberry these days.

I'm divided on the issue that Ben Stein is bringing up because of the rising discrimination against theists in science in terms of tenure, funding and publication, regardless of merit.

What rising discrimination? Every instance of "Discrimination" so far raised is down to the incompetence of the Creationist involved.
You would be better off looking at what happens to those who question Creationism. Several school teachers have been fired. Someone was even murdered for arguing with a Creationist. (The alcohol wouldn't have helped)

As fro Gonzales, he was, IIRC, incompetent. He had a good record, then blew it when he started spending too much time on ID rubbish. So the tenure committee rightly denied him it, given that his output in the last few years was poor.

What rising discrimination? Every instance of "Discrimination" so far raised is down to the incompetence of the Creationist involved.
You would be better off looking at what happens to those who question Creationism. Several school teachers have been fired. Someone was even murdered for arguing with a Creationist. (The alcohol wouldn't have helped)

As fro Gonzales, he was, IIRC, incompetent. He had a good record, then blew it when he started spending too much time on ID rubbish. So the tenure committee rightly denied him it, given that his output in the last few years was poor.

Like I said the nutjobs of either end of the spectrum have a field day

Dawkins failed to mention that it is assumed but not proven that "Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen" Life or a god could have formed via many spontanously (but weird) scenario, I can think of two off hand.

1. Chance: if the universe if infinite then even the most improbably thing will happen, for example a 747 forming out of random atoms, or the spontaneous creation of life. The only way to test this is to survey, unfortantly we do not yet have the technology to survey the whole galaxy, other galaxies, and relies that our existence is a one of a kind fluke.

2. The "I'm my own grandfather paradox" consider it the opposite of the "Grandfather paradox" (thank you Phillip J. Fry) in which through time-travel you spawn your self, likewise life on earth could have been created through a temporal paradox, which means life created its self out of nothing.

Well just look at this sentence:

"Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen."

That was a slip, well i think that guy Darkins said it but they seem (what are they called?Evolutionists) to leave that part out on their blogs. And thank god for blogs, where would we be without those? yawn. Either way, that is really what it all boils down to and that stick in their side like a thorn.

What's your complaint about that statement?

I'm divided on the issue that Ben Stein is bringing up because of the rising discrimination against theists in science in terms of tenure, funding and publication, regardless of merit.

From the link YOU provided:

"However, this shows a naïve and distorted understanding of the tenure process at a major research university. The tenure process involves intense scrutiny of a candidate’s accomplishments in order to assess his future potential; the beliefs or extra-academic opinions held by the candidate are not a factor."

Making up lies again, Sam?

From the link YOU provided:

"However, this shows a naïve and distorted understanding of the tenure process at a major research university. The tenure process involves intense scrutiny of a candidate’s accomplishments in order to assess his future potential; the beliefs or extra-academic opinions held by the candidate are not a factor."

Making up lies again, Sam?

:roflmao:

Yeah clearly you know a great deal about the tenure process.

So, you make up lies and then laugh at others for not taking your lies seriously. You certainly are working hard as the poster child for Sciforums.

And you're arguing from ignorance. Since you don't know that stupid stuff like collegiality has been sufficient grounds to deny tenure. Collegiality is just another word for "I don't like her or him". Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure inspite of an overwhelming recommendation based on his credentials.

The decision to deny Finkelstein tenure was upheld by DePaul’s president, the Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, despite a majority (9-3) recommendation by the departmental tenure committee and a unanimous (5-0) recommendation by the Personnel Committee for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Why don't you get a clue? The tenure process is not all sunshine and roses.

Like I said the nutjobs of either end of the spectrum have a field day

So, no evidence of rising discrimination? Thats good to know.

So, no evidence of rising discrimination? Thats good to know.

How many scientists you know declare themselves to be theists?

How many chairs? deans? department heads?

Question: why should they?
i know of quite a number of physicists that are christians, but frankly, but as it is a private matter I only know that because I have talked to them in private. While we are at it, how many scientists have declared themselves to be gay, vegan, D&D or, even worse, Counterstrike gamers? And who cares?
But according to surveys I recall that in the US the majority of physicists declared themselves to be religious at some level, the reverse was true for biologists and chemists guy were in-between.
The numbers are higher even in most social sciences.

Off topic posts moved

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79084


Question: why should they?
i know of quite a number of physicists that are christians, but frankly, but as it is a private matter I only know that because I have talked to them in private. While we are at it, how many scientists have declared themselves to be gay, vegan, D&D or, even worse, Counterstrike gamers? And who cares?
But according to surveys I recall that in the US the majority of physicists declared themselves to be religious at some level, the reverse was true for biologists and chemists guy were in-between.
The numbers are higher even in most social sciences.

Hmm so you do not think that there is discrimination against theists in the sciences?

How many declare themselves as atheists?

Yes, an atheistic approach to science. You appear to be claiming that even the attempt to argue the thesis Dawkins is arguing is invalid.
I don't think you can compare models designed with different end points in view. Again, better in what sense? You can't compare the different "end points" of various models ? Why not ?
Yeah he is creating a model based on lack of evidence. And calling it science. He is doing neither one of those things, as far as I have read.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, though. This "different end points" stuff is confusing.
I think we should limit science to what can be empirically observed, tested and replicated, rather than limiting academic seats to atheists who explore the scientific basis of God. I'm not sure what you think Dawkins is asserting as "science" that does not involve obsevation, testing, and replication.

This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS. So is Dawkins allowed to do that or not ?
I'm divided on the issue that Ben Stein is bringing up because of the rising discrimination against theists in science in terms of tenure, funding and publication, regardless of merit. Bullshit.
How many scientists you know declare themselves to be theists?

How many chairs? deans? department heads? About the same number who "declare themselves" to be atheist - very few.
Hmm so you do not think that there is discrimination against theists in the sciences? There is discrimination against the ones who employ theistic explanations of natural phenomena - such as human morals, if morals are the subject under investigation. But theists who do not employ deity in their theories face no special obstacles that I can see - quite the opposite: there are many employers of scientists who favor certain religious beliefs.

"Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen."

That was a slip, well i think that guy Darkins said it but they seem (what are they called?Evolutionists) to leave that part out on their blogs. And thank god for blogs, where would we be without those? yawn. Either way, that is really what it all boils down to and that stick in their side like a thorn. I don't see the slip. Probably the other "evolutionists" don't either. Where is the slip ?

I'm saying that Dawkins is using his position to promote his faith by associating it with science.

Darwin also found his discoveries challenging to his faith. So did most of his critics.

Darwin also found his discoveries challenging to his faith. So did most of his critics.

Did he start an evangelical movement over it?

He had better things to do, like figuring out how we were really created.

I'm saying that Dawkins is using his position to promote his faith by associating it with science.

What faith is that Sam?

You could also make that statement a forum topic here. (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=14&sid=da39514c6144ee78afa27826fb772284)

I doubt you would, though. :fright:

What faith is that Sam?

You could also make that statement a forum topic here. (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=14&sid=da39514c6144ee78afa27826fb772284)

I doubt you would, though. :fright:

I rarely argue with fundies.

But as for faith?

Here (http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm)

Did he start an evangelical movement over it?

Not really. But, he did pen a bible. (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/)

It's a fact that science discovered a powerful principle in our world that robbed religion of one of it's main explanatory purposes.

I rarely argue with fundies.

Pffft... You don't have the nerve. You'd get spanked and sent off tail tucked twixt yer hind legs. :spank:

Pffft... You don't have the nerve. You'd get spanked and sent off tail tucked twixt yer hind legs. :spank:

No, I find no reason to rob someone of their reason for living. Fundies tend to be very unstable.

I'm saying that Dawkins is using his position to promote his faith by associating it with science. So what faith is that, that needs to be purposefully associated with science ?

From what I have read, Dawkins promotes nothing in particular but science itself, and evolutionary theory specifically. Any faith involved there would not need associating with science.

He attacks theism, in some of his writings - - -
No, I find no reason to rob someone of their reason for living. Fundies tend to be very unstable. So why is it that fundies are so fragile, think you, that we must tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities ?

Forget it. Iceaura just dont seem to get it.

So what faith is that, that needs to be purposefully associated with science ?

New Atheism

From what I have read, Dawkins promotes nothing in particular but science itself, and evolutionary theory specifically. Any faith involved there would not need associating with science.

Thats how the Nazis started, with a theory about some people being more equal than others.


He attacks theism, in some of his writings - - -

Some? It seems to be all he does these days.

So why is it that fundies are so fragile, think you, that we must tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities ?

No idea, I don't pretend to understand what drives people like Dawkins or Wilders.

That's how the Nazis started? By daring to question What Must Not be Questioned? Give me a freaking break.

That's how the Nazis started? By daring to question What Must Not be Questioned? Give me a freaking break.

No by making distinctions between people based on assumptions.

Why do I even try to have a reasonable discussion with you?

Thats how the Nazis started, with a theory about some people being more equal than others.

"Adolf Hitler, the founder of Nazism, said that all the problems of Germany were the result of Jews plotting against the country. He even said that it was Jewish politicians who arranged the Armistice of 1918, and who allowed Germany to pay massive reparations."

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

"Adolf Hitler, the founder of Nazism, said that all the problems of Germany were the result of Jews plotting against the country. He even said that it was Jewish politicians who arranged the Armistice of 1918, and who allowed Germany to pay massive reparations."

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Yeah and thiests are plotting to take over eager athiestic scientific minds and destroy science. Being all evil and delusional and violent, all at once.

Yeah and thiests are plotting to take over eager athiestic scientific minds and destroy science. Being all evil and delusional and violent, all at once.

The quote was placed there to refute your silly assertion, again. You may troll, but that is your forte every time you get spanked.

The quote was placed there to refute your silly assertion, again. You may troll, but that is your forte every time you get spanked.

How does it refute my assertion? You proved it. :confused:

Unless you think the Jews were plotting against the Nazis?:eek:

Yeah and thiests are plotting to take over eager athiestic scientific minds and destroy science. Being all evil and delusional and violent, all at once.

But... that's exactly what they do!!!

But... that's exactly what they do!!!

See?:shrug:

This is probably why Oxford, where Dawkins is influential is now discouraging religious people in the science departments. Discrimination is already setting in.

Why do I even try to have a reasonable discussion with you?

No by making distinctions between people based on assumptions.

Here is an example of what I am saying:

Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Nobody is suggesting that all religious people are violent, intolerant, racist, bigoted, contemptuous of women and so on. It would be absurd to suggest such a thing: just as absurd as to generalize about all atheists. I am not even concerned with statistical generalizations about the majority of religious people (or atheists). My concern here is over whether there is any general reason why religion might be more or less likely to bias individuals towards all those unpleasant things in Christopher Hitchens’s list: to make them more likely to exhibit them than they would have been without religion. I think the answer is yes.


Now I believe history shows that athiests are more likely to become intolerant mass murderers and as Dawkins has already shown himself to be discriminatory, he proves me half right. :shrug:

Its like saying, Jews are fine, if only they weren't Jewish.

Hmm so you do not think that there is discrimination against theists in the sciences?

How many declare themselves as atheists?

You mean openly? Well, from those with which I work, essentially no one bothers to declare his religion. What you do not realize is that the situation is mostly a US one. Dawkins and his atheistic movement gets more publicity here than in Europe. The reason for this is that the creationist movement is so strong in the US as compared to, say, Germany, where it is pretty much a non-issue.
In fact I only know of two German scientists that bother with this particularities. One of them is a creationist and he was shot down not because he wrote creationist stuff on his official homepage, but because he used official logos of his institute to promote his personal opinions. Well shot down is maybe a bit hard. Another guy (an evolutionary biologists) wrote an angry letter about this and that creationist guy had to remove the institute logo from his homepage. Other than that religion is a purely private issue. If there is an appointment it is explicitly forbidden (US or Europe) to ask what religion one has. As I said, there are quite a lot of physicists that are religious even quite a number of prominent ones, as e.g. Davies. Funnily many of them are cosmologists, too. However, in the field of biology it may be more tricky, if the religion that one adheres to explicitly counters current scientific theories with believes. If you work as biochemist or molecular field it may not be an issue. But you simply won't get an appointment as evolutionary biologist. And rightfully so.

See?:shrug:

This is probably why Oxford, where Dawkins is influential is now discouraging religious people in the science departments. Discrimination is already setting in.
What do you mean see? Creationists have already organized a conspiracy to include their religion in school science classes. They renamed creationism- ID.

What do you mean see? Creationists have already organized a conspiracy to include their religion in school science classes. They renamed creationism- ID.

In Oxford?

They would if they could.

Exactly. :shrug:

Luckily, England has a long history with religious violence, and now they don't take religion seriously. The USA is a different matter.

Past history in atheist ideologies does not inspire any confidence in them either.

Atheism isn't an ideology.

I beg to differ:

Between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate religion, ripping down the country's biggest cathedral, killing Muslim clerics and turning Buddhist temples into pigsties.



Victims of the Khmer Rouge
http://www.frontline.org.za/IMAGES/SKULLS.JPG

It seems Dick can attempt to explain anything as long as it doesn't include the words "God" or "gods"
Maybe it's just a hang up on terms and time frames.
Thoughts?

people never seem to be concise on what God exactly is...why not see these alien designers as God?

I beg to differ:



Victims of the Khmer Rouge
http://www.frontline.org.za/IMAGES/SKULLS.JPG

The ideology in this case was Communism, which manifested with a religious fervor.

The ideology in this case was Communism, which manifested with a religious fervor.

By athiests who killed to eradicate religion.

By athiests who killed to eradicate religion.

So there forth all atheist believe they must kill all theist, of course the logic is impeccable! I bet its must be written in an atheist holy book (which they regard as infallible) to convert or kill believers in god(s)!

By athiests who killed to eradicate religion.

They happened to be atheists, and asians, and any number of other things that had nothing to do with their violent actions...

They happened to be atheists, and asians, and any number of other things that had nothing to do with their violent actions...

I think destroying religious symbols and killing believers while forbidding religious practice, pretty much falls under athiest freaks following militant athiesm.

No, they did those things because any kind of ideology except Communism was viewed as a threat. They had no love for Buddhists either, who are atheists themselves.

No, they did those things because any kind of ideology except Communism was viewed as a threat. They had no love for Buddhists either, who are atheists themselves.

Yeah I'm sure:rolleyes:


Its why they banned religion and sent everyone to reeducation camps to unlearn religion. Nope, nothing to do with atheism.

In 1975 when the communist Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia, they tried to completely destroy Buddhism and very nearly succeeded. By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.

The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia's Buddhist institutions.[13] Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity, sometimes secretly performing Buddhist rituals for the sick or afflicted.[14]

Estimates vary regarding the number of monks in Cambodia prior to the ascension of the Khmer Rouge, ranging between 65,000 and 80,000.[15] By the time of the Buddhist restoration in the early 1980s, the number of Cambodian monks worldwide was estimated to be less than 3,000.[16] The patriarchs of both Cambodian nikayas perished sometime during the period 1975-78, though the cause of their deaths is not known.

Atheism isn't anti-religion. The Khmer Rouge were anti-religion. I practiced Buddhism for awhile, I see nothing about it that is contrary to atheism.

Atheism isn't anti-religion. The Khmer Rouge were anti-religion. I practiced Buddhism for awhile, I see nothing about it that is contrary to atheism.

Did you perform the rituals for the dead?

Atheists can be anti-thiests. Look at Dawkins, who considers all theists as stupid and delusional people. Given enough power, he would enforce his beliefs, shutting down all practice of faith and oppressing theists and it would be entirely due to his atheism.

The dead need no rituals, and you are lying about Dawkins. He's only concerned about children having freedom of mind, freedom from unreasonable fear.

The dead need no rituals, and you are lying about Dawkins. He's only concerned about children having freedom of mind, freedom from unreasonable fear.

Yeah, everyone is so concerned about the children, especially that they should get rid of teh God Delusion. Nothing to do with being an atheist.

"Religious people suck dummies"

So there forth all atheist believe they must kill all theist, of course the logic is impeccable! I bet its must be written in an atheist holy book (which they regard as infallible) to convert or kill believers in god(s)!

You think its a coincidence that it was repeated from the Soviet Union, to China, to Cambodia to Vietnam to North Korea and always resulted in forbidding religion and killing believers? And that in some of these places, people are still forbidden to worship openly on pain of persecution?

That's not simply atheism, that's the Socialist Revolution. They also don't believe in private property, but I wonder why you point to atheism as the cause of persecution and violence, rather than, say, collectivism or class warfare? Class warfare is a good one, because religions create a priestly class that do no useful work.

Coincidentally all of them were also athiests?

That's only an official position, they probably had all sorts of personal beliefs, desires, ambitions, fears, that were fulfilled by the revolution. In fact, the indigenous beliefs never died out, so how could that be?

But all athiests? Immune to fundamentalism?

But all athiests? Immune to fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism: The interpretation of every word in sacred texts as literal truth.

Fundamentalism: The interpretation of every word in sacred texts as literal truth.

Yeah, except the ones they write themselves *cough cough*

You think its a coincidence that it was repeated from the Soviet Union, to China, to Cambodia to Vietnam to North Korea and always resulted in forbidding religion and killing believers? And that in some of these places, people are still forbidden to worship openly on pain of persecution?

It is a logical fallacy and intellectually dishonest to continue to claim that the results of communism are directly related to atheism. Of course, this has been explained to you MANY times and in GREAT detail, yet you continue to use it as an argument.

Communism is not atheism. Communism has an effect on all aspects of country, people and government. To make the claim that communism is atheism, you would also have to make the claim that their employment, transit, education, economical and many other systems are also based on atheism.

It is ridiculous in the extreme, Sam. Will you ever learn? :shrug:

The Khmer regime had no qualities that could be called atheism. They were anti-religion because that symbolized the previous feudal regimes. Monks were forced to work, as was everyone else. People were killed for all sorts of reasons: speaking a western language, picking berries, not being good enough farmers, wearing glasses, having an education, being gay... Obviously there was somthing going on here far beyond atheism. Pol Pot himself served in a Buddhist monastery at one time.

The Khmer regime had no qualities that could be called atheism. They were anti-religion because that symbolized the previous feudal regimes. Monks were forced to work, as was everyone else. People were killed for all sorts of reasons: speaking a western language, picking berries, not being good enough farmers, wearing glasses, having an education, being gay... Obviously there was somthing going on here far beyond atheism. Pol Pot himself served in a Buddhist monastery at one time.

Like Richard Dawkins was educated in a Methodist school? Still you'd have to admit that banning ALL religion sort of kinda sounds like an atheist gone berserk. Like CLOSE DOWN ALL FAITH SCHOOLS!!!

No, the Khmer would have killed Dawkins too, for being an intellectual. In fact, having this discussion would be grounds for executing all of us (as well as all members of Sciforums).

No, the Khmer would have killed Dawkins too, for being an intellectual. In fact, this whole discussion would be grounds for executing all of us.

I think once they found out he was in favor of removing all religion from society and shutting down all religious institutions they would have elected him president.

The Khmer Rouge wasn't against religion in general:



Article 20 (http://khmerrougehistory.blogspot.com/) Every citizen of Kampuchea has the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion.


Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.

(Honorary Red Flag Letter to the Central Committee, 1977)



Check and mate.

The Khmer Rouge wasn't against religion in general:


Article 20 (http://khmerrougehistory.blogspot.com/) Every citizen of Kampuchea has the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion.


Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.

(Honorary Red Flag Letter to the Central Committee, 1977)



Check and mate.

Yeah neither was the Soviet Union. Athiests don't lie?:rolleyes:

Fact: they destroyed the churches, killed Muslim clerics and decimated Buddhist monks from 80,000 to 3,000.

Who cares what they SAID? Look at what they DID!

Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.

Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.

:roflmao:

You mean like the Jews were a threat to German economy.

Godwin's Law, you lose.

Wait I have one more:

The United States does not torture. :D

I can't believe youre falling back on propaganda to support your case.

You know, until atheists accept that they can be vulnerable to ideological genocide, I'm not going to consider them as anything but delusional idiots. ;)

Obviously not out of atheism, but because they felt those institutions were a threat to socialist revolution, as I have been saying all along.
”


You mean like the Jews were a threat to German economy. Exactly.

With the difference that Pol Pot was apparently, individually, atheist - unlike Hitler, who was apparently not.

Which seems to make a big difference to you, for some reason. If you are arguing that evil people who get their hands on the machinery of organized theistic religion (or any other large social organization free of reason's restraint) are magnified in their capabilities, no one will object. If you are arguing that the atheist ones are evil because they are atheist you have to make some kind of different case.

It's not impossible - one could, for example, argue that the more cynical the adherence of the Evil Power Seeker to the religion being used, the more likely success and consequent evil will be theirs in their ambition. But that is not an argument against Dawkins's objections to theism.

Instead, you undermine your own arguments with stuff like this: Wait I have one more:

The United States does not torture. A statement made, and a reality created, by the most flagrant theists ever to hod power in the US government.

Meanwhile, the correlation between personal physical stature and evil-doing, in Great Leaders, is better attested than that between personal physical theism and evil-doing.

btw: Most atheists easily agree that atheists can commit ideological genocide. The ideology involved will not be "atheism", however - at least, no sign of that in history or current trends.

As far as being vulnerable to ideological "genocide" - of that we have several examples.

Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good. He's like the well meaning fool, who is so interested in pursuing his own ideological goals that he's blind to the repercussions and consequences. I don't think he will do anything for furthering science. Quite teh reverse possibly, by alienating all thiests, moderate or extreme. And I think he will do even less for humanity.

Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good. That would be better argued from someone who appeared to have read his stuff and have some idea of what he was doing.

That would be better argued from someone who appeared to have read his stuff and have some idea of what he was doing.

Rather than gauge the active anti-theism effect of his "teachings" you mean? Does anyone disagree that he is an anti-theist?

Stuff like this (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/11/should-scientists-speak-out-against-religion.html):

I reject the idea that it is or ever can be a bad thing to be passionate in one's convictions. On the contrary, I think ordinary people respond to passionately held beliefs defended strongly, and will usually come to respect such positions regardless of whether they agree with them.

just makes my head spin.

You think its a coincidence that it was repeated from the Soviet Union, to China, to Cambodia to Vietnam to North Korea and always resulted in forbidding religion and killing believers? And that in some of these places, people are still forbidden to worship openly on pain of persecution?

Of course athiest do it! They are require by their atheist holy books to do it! Just like when different religions kill each other athiest group together, read from their holy text that puts them all in a singular mind funk bent on hate and they go burn them selfs some believers on stakes!

(rather everyone kills each other, for any excuse imaginable, its human and has nothing to do with theism or atheism)

Of course athiest do it! They are require by their atheist holy books to do it! Just like when different religions kill each other athiest group together, read from their holy text that puts them all in a singular mind funk bent on hate and they go burn them selfs some believers on stakes!

(rather everyone kills each other, for any excuse imaginable, its human and has nothing to do with theism or atheism)

So it would appear that books are unnecessary. Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation.

Well personally, I think Dawkins does more harm than good. He's like the well meaning fool, who is so interested in pursuing his own ideological goals that he's blind to the repercussions and consequences. I don't think he will do anything for furthering science. Quite teh reverse possibly, by alienating all thiests, moderate or extreme. And I think he will do even less for humanity.

hehe, it's hilarious when the deluded devise silly notions they are unable to support, especially when they want to support their own hypocrisy.

So it would appear that books are unnecessary. Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation.

You have difficult separating out sarcasm? But you did seem to figure out what I was saying at least mostly, its not a matter of books or belief, genocide is just human nature, I'm sure your aware of the millenia records of religious genocide so I don't see why you might believe athiest are the only ones that do it.

hehe, it's hilarious when the deluded devise silly notions they are unable to support, especially when they want to support their own hypocrisy.

Like these (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)?

Rather than gauge the active anti-theism effect of his "teachings" you mean? Does anyone disagree that he is an anti-theist? Odd to see a religious theist confuse "anti-theism" with "anti-theist" - isn't that one of the big distinctions that supposedly lets all these theistic religions off the hook for their mass crimes and horrible atrocities ?

But Dawkins has not been fulminating against theists as a category of people, at least not in anything I've read. He is arguing that theisms have certain flaws in common, as political philosophies and especially as approaches to understanding of the natural world, and that people are often victims of them in various ways.

Since not only did atheists in the absence of any scripture kill millions, but repeated it over and over without the slightest remorse or reparation. Hmmm. Aside from accusing certain Great Leaders of personal atheism and ideologies of focused anti-Church bigotry, you have been sort of missing that specific issue.

Dawkins has been a bit better targeted, there. If you read his actual writings , say in "The God Delusion", he addresses your apparent concerns directly.

Nope. The author is a "professor" (hilarious) of the Jesuit University of New York. He is a full-blown theist. What the fuck did you expect?

Typical bullshit from you, Sam. Knee-jerk reactions. Insulting, at best.

Dawkins does not defend alien designers. He merely states that Panspermia cannot be an answer as that lifeform would have had to evolve as well.

Indeed. :)

You know, until atheists accept that they can be vulnerable to ideological genocide, I'm not going to consider them as anything but delusional idiots.

Yes, because not believing in a God, even if that is out of a well thought out assessment of whether there is evidence, automatically makes you a delusional idiot.

Odd to see a religious theist confuse "anti-theism" with "anti-theist" - isn't that one of the big distinctions that supposedly lets all these theistic religions off the hook for their mass crimes and horrible atrocities ?

But Dawkins has not been fulminating against theists as a category of people, at least not in anything I've read. He is arguing that theisms have certain flaws in common, as political philosophies and especially as approaches to understanding of the natural world, and that people are often victims of them in various ways.

You mean the part where he says religious people suck dummies is arguing against flaws in theisms? Or is it the part where he says that moderate theists are also delusional and should be included in the noble war of reason against faith?:rolleyes:

In fact some (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/internationaleducationnews.religion) of his statements are very telling:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told — religious Jews anyway — than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

He is clearly interested in using his atheism to interfere with state and social policy.

Hmmm. Aside from accusing certain Great Leaders of personal atheism and ideologies of focused anti-Church bigotry, you have been sort of missing that specific issue.

Dawkins has been a bit better targeted, there. If you read his actual writings , say in "The God Delusion", he addresses your apparent concerns directly.


Its interesting how he cherry picks the actions of theists and ignores the fact that sans scriptures atheists have been willing to go much further to promote their ideologies. Especially considering his own desire to influence policy, not only at the level of state (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,313,E-Petition-Abolish-Faith-Schools,Petitionspmgovuk,page2#15350) but also at the level of family (http://telicthoughts.com/uk-petition-against-religious-upbringing/).

What next, atheists bicycling door to door with a copy of his book?:rolleyes:


You have difficult separating out sarcasm? But you did seem to figure out what I was saying at least mostly, its not a matter of books or belief, genocide is just human nature, I'm sure your aware of the millenia records of religious genocide so I don't see why you might believe athiest are the only ones that do it.

Well athiests appear to be especially good at it, wouldn't you say? Must be the larger forebrain as evidenced by the superior rational thinking. :p



Nope. The author is a "professor" (hilarious) of the Jesuit University of New York. He is a full-blown theist. What the fuck did you expect?

Typical bullshit from you, Sam. Knee-jerk reactions. Insulting, at best.

My dear (Q), you are supposed to read the article.


Like this:

H. Allen Orr is an evolutionary biologist who once called Mr. Dawkins a “professional atheist.” But now, Mr. Orr wrote in the Jan. 11 issue of The New York Review of Books, “I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude that he’s actually more of an amateur.”

Terry Eagleton, (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on “The God Delusion.”

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Mr. Eagleton wrote, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” ...Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree. Very few of them, one suspects, had read more than a few pages of his work, and even that judgment might be excessively charitable. Yet they would doubtless have been horrified to receive an essay on Hume from a student who had not read his Treatise of Human Nature. There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in with scarcely a struggle to the grossest prejudice. For a lot of academic psychologists, it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is the writings of Marx; for militant rationalists it is religion.

He is clearly interested in using his atheism to interfere with state and social policy.

As opposed to the status quo of theism interfering with state and social policy? :rolleyes:

Its interesting how he cherry picks the actions of theists...

A cherry tree usually won't bare fruit every minute of every day of every century...

What next, atheists bicycling door to door with a copy of his book?:rolleyes:

http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/accessservices/images/cbkmobile.jpg

My dear (Q), you are supposed to read the article.

What? Another theist commenting on Dawkins? Piss off.

Terry Eagleton: "Eagleton obtained his Ph.D. from Trinity College, Cambridge and then became a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton

As opposed to the status quo of theism interfering with state and social policy? :rolleyes:

So its just petty jealousy, then?



A cherry tree usually won't bare fruit every minute of every day of every century...


Exactly and especially not the better part of a century <still in progress, btw, see Jong-il>;)

http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/accessservices/images/cbkmobile.jpg


What is arguably more interesting about Dawkins's TV work is the sense in which his public advocacy of atheism is coming to look more and more like media-savvy forms of contemporary religion, particularly evangelicalism. One of the reasons evangelicalism has flourished in contemporary society is precisely the way in which it has used publishing, consumer products, educational resources, film, television and new media as resources by which its adherents can develop particular kinds of religious experiences, identities and social networks. Evangelicalism has proven more successful in surviving the secularising trends of the contemporary world than other branches of Christianity because it has been able to develop into a religious subculture in which likeminded individuals and groups support each other and sustain their particular vision of the world.

Evangelical subculture even throws up its own celebrities, who serve as focuses and role models for evangelical identities and aspirations; the Dawkins/atheism phenomenon is increasingly taking a similar form. Compare, for example, Richard Dawkins and his bestselling book The God Delusion with the celebrity Evangelical pastor Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose-Driven Life has sold nearly 25m copies.

In both instances, their books take on a greater cultural significance than simply being texts that transmit particular ideas and arguments: they become symbols of particular cultural identities, beliefs and lifestyles; their authors acquire celebrity status and a similar symbolic function, and the act of buying the book can become an act of religious/atheist identity construction - even if the book itself never gets read. Dawkins's website also echoes the ways in which evangelicals have embraced the internet as a way for disseminating ideas and educational resources, providing social networking tools, selling consumer products and appealing for funding.

Until now, atheism has never held much interest for sociologists of religion such as myself. The numbers of people identifying themselves as atheists in surveys have been a small fraction of the population, and atheist organisations have had relatively little impact on the wider cultural landscape. But this could be changing. The high public profile (and sales) of recent books by Dawkins, Richard Dennett, AC Grayling, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens suggests growing numbers of people may be being drawn to identifying themselves in opposition to religion.

Dawkins's declared interest in making atheism more publicly acceptable - exemplified by the sale of 'A for atheism' T-shirts on his website - demonstrates that this phenomenon is not simply about philosophical debates concerning the existence of God. The sheer ferocity of many of the atheist critiques of religion also suggests that we are not in the territory of reasoned debate, but witnessing the birth pangs of a new, anti-religious cultural identity.

We are now seeing a concerted effort being made to validate an atheist cultural identity through media and consumer products, just as evangelicals have already used these resources to consolidate their form of Christian identity in the modern world.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gordon_lynch/2007/08/atheism_the_new_zealotry.html

What? Another theist commenting on Dawkins? Piss off.

Terry Eagleton: "Eagleton obtained his Ph.D. from Trinity College, Cambridge and then became a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton

And Dawkins was educated in a Methodist school and is currently in Oxford, established by monks and theologians. ooh closet theist!!!!!!!:rolleyes:


A Catholic turned Marxist from a working-class background, Terry Eagleton was an influential English don - and active militant - at the heart of the establishment in Oxford.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts/story/0,1392,643458,00.html

And Dawkins was educated in a Methodist school and is currently in Oxford, established by monks and theologians.

Cite?

Well athiests appear to be especially good at it, wouldn't you say? Must be the larger forebrain as evidenced by the superior rational thinking.

I don't see any evidence atheist are better at it, perhaps modern technology has made genocide more efficient and has also breed more atheist, but it is a Questionable Cause fallacy to connect them, a result of either ignorance, judgmental bias or both on your part.

I don't see any evidence atheist are better at it, perhaps modern technology has made genocide more efficient and has also breed more atheist, but it is a Questionable Cause fallacy to connect them, a result of either ignorance, judgmental bias or both on your part.

Hmm so you don't see any connection between some nations becoming officially atheist and the genocide of believers alongwith the banning of religious practice?

Hmm so you don't see any connection between some nations becoming officially atheist and the genocide of believers alongwith the banning of religious practice?

Yes, I've seen this connection many times, usually by theists who cannot comprehend existence without their gods, one of many delusions they devise.

Cite?

Which part? He was confirmed at school (he's never given the name that I remember) and is a lapsed CofE. Apparently Anglican, not Methodist, though I don't know the difference.

When the family returned to England, he went to a C of E school, was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature

Oxford? He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public [Mis]Understanding of Science Religion, Oxford University

Hmm so you don't see any connection between some nations becoming officially atheist and the genocide of believers alongwith the banning of religious practice?

Nope, plenty of theists states and leaders have committed genocide and oppressed freedoms, in fact many did so against other theist simply because they believed in a different religion.

Yes, I've seen this connection many times, usually by theists who cannot comprehend existence without their gods, one of many delusions they devise.

So existence without Gods means

1. Theists are stupid and inferior [besides being delusional and violent liars]
2. Shut down faith schools
3. Parents should not have control over their own children

ie totalitarianism? Yeah, I get it. Jong-il is a shining flag bearer

Puts a few hundred Christians to death every year and "disposes" of mutant infants (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587474-2703,00.html) regardless of the parents opinions. Shut down all faith schools too, last I heard.

Although religious freedom does not exist, there is dispute about how genuine religious practice is at the handful of "show churches" in the capital Pyongyang. Dusty pews suggest that they are not well used. Buddhist temples are mere cultural relics. Parents are reportedly afraid to pass on their faith to their children, as sporadic refugee accounts suggest believers are still punished for practicing their faith in secret.

Dawkins would be thrilled at parents not being allowed (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10954) to practice their faith with their children. Down with child abuse, eh?

Which part? I don't know the difference.

Yes, I know.

Nope, plenty of theists states and leaders have committed genocide and oppressed freedoms, in fact many did so against other theist simply because they believed in a different religion.

All atheist regimes have been totalitarian.

So existence without Gods means

1. Theists are stupid and inferior [besides being delusional and violent]
2. Shut down faith schools
3. Parents should not have control over their own children

ie totalitarianism? Yeah, I get it. Jong-il is a shining flag bearer

Puts a few hundred Christians to death every year and "disposes" of mutant infants regardless of the parents opinions. Shut down all faith schools too, last I heard.

Dawkins would be thrilled at parents not being allowed to practice their faith with their children.

http://www.pashnit.com/forum/images/smilies/eatdrink.gif

All atheist regimes have been totalitarian.

http://www.pashnit.com/forum/images/smilies/laughing-on-ground.gif

I knew you'd be happy to see a society where the violent delusions of theists were firmly held in check ;)

All atheist regimes have been totalitarian.

There forth all atheism is totalitarian? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)

I knew you'd be happy to see a society where the violent delusions of theists were firmly held in check ;)

Most secular countries seem to do that.

There forth all atheism is totalitarian? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)

I call it The Godless Delusion.



Most secular countries seem to do that.

Not to the extent that Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/article,313,E-Petition-Abolish-Faith-Schools,Petitionspmgovuk) and (Q) (http://telicthoughts.com/uk-petition-against-religious-upbringing/) would like.

So existence without Gods means: 1. Theists are stupid and inferior [besides being delusional and violent liars]; 2. Shut down faith schools; 3. Parents should not have control over their own children; ie totalitarianism? Yeah, I get it. Jong-il is a shining flag bearer. Puts a few hundred Christians to death every year and "disposes" of mutant infants regardless of the parents opinions.I suppose that's the schism in the "atheist community," as if there were such a community. Those of us who believe "freedom of religion" means just that, versus those whose mission is to illustrate why we must allow freedom of religion no matter what the cost. Our premise is not just that religion is false, but that the world would be a better place without it. If we make the world a worse place by trying to eliminate religion before the time is right for that to happen naturally, then we become antireligous despots who are no better than the religious despots: we end up causing a lot of suffering over a mere idea, rather than anything concrete. An idea that the scientists among us will be quick to point out has a vanishingly small but non-zero chance of being wrong.Shut down all faith schools too, last I heard. Dawkins would be thrilled at parents not being allowed to practice their faith with their children. Down with child abuse, eh?Child abuse is a slippery concept. Like many of the choices in the real world, there's no clear delineation between right and wrong so we just have to draw the line somewhere and be content with that. We're prosecuting Christian Scientists who let their children die of easily curable ailments rather than join the "mainstream" who believe that God put all these really smart scientists and doctors here to help them. We're prosecuting men in Mormon splinter groups who believe that it's God's will to coerce fourteen-year-old girls into marriage--several of them apiece. We're removing textbooks from Islamic schools which teach children that Christians and Jews are inferior and therefore do not have the same rights as they do.

Basically we're saying that there's a point on the spectrum of religion beyond which you're not allowed to go no matter how sincerely you believe in it, and you reach that point when you start taking your child too far out of the mainstream. This seems like reasonable and responsible support of civilization to us, but to them it feels l