 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1991
Location: Atlanta
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools |
 |
|
| Quote: | Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.
"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," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.
"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."
Prof Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is author of books including the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion.
He said science was being threatened in classrooms because the Government accepts that theories including "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution."
"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."
Prof Dawkins had recently finished a TV programme in which he went into a classroom of 15-year-olds at a secondary school in London.
"I was shocked by how some put up barriers to understanding," he said "I showed them the evidence, and they just said, 'This is what it says in my holy book.' And so I asked, 'If your holy book says one thing, but the evidence says something else, you then go with your holy book?' And they said, 'Yes.' And I said, 'Why?' And they said, 'It's the way we've been brought up'."
Prof Dawkins said the failure in classrooms meant religious fanatics had a chance to get hold.
"Because we are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge," he said.
"I think we have all been brought up to give too much respect to religion, as opposed to any other kind of opinion." |
Link
_________________
"All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price." - Juvenal |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into school |
|
|
| Mattathias wrote: |
"I think we have all been brought up to give too much respect to religion, as opposed to any other kind of opinion." |
Link
This is the mistake Dawkins makes. He attacks religion instead of defending the integrity of the scientific method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
King of the Jungle
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1991
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into school |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | This is the mistake Dawkins makes. He attacks religion instead of defending the integrity of the scientific method. |
I often hear people say that Dawkins is opposed to Christianity. (And that is so.) But, as you point out, he is not just opposed to Christianity. He is opposed to all religion.
Christianity may not have a lot in common with Islam but we do have creationism in common.
_________________
"All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price." - Juvenal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6289
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into school |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | This is the mistake Dawkins makes. He attacks religion instead of defending the integrity of the scientific method. |
The integrity of the scientific method isn't in need of defending.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1803
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent thread and points.
Yes, indeed Dawkins vehement attacks against Christianity are a by product of his actual Crusade. His point is to have science taught as science is, and not convoluted with religion.
It just so happens that Christianity has been the most prevalent in the West to do this - to interject it's believer's views that distort mainstream science.
Recently we saw posts where Islam is becoming more active in Europe regarding Creationism - so I think we will see Islam become part of the discussion more.
I support Dawkins and think what he is doing is great. Yes, he is sometimes rude. But his points are always supported well. I have rarely read or seen something he's said that I thought was incorrect.
It is what he says that attracts me to what he is trying to do.
If religion would stay out of schools and stop attacking science, I don't think he would have much of a problem with religion. Just a guess.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into school |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | This is the mistake Dawkins makes. He attacks religion instead of defending the integrity of the scientific method. |
The integrity of the scientific method isn't in need of defending. |
Tell that to the Supreme Court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6289
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there something you're referring to?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Is there something you're referring to? |
In other words if pseudo-science becomes synonymous with science, the integrity of the scientific method will be the first to suffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | Excellent thread and points.
Yes, indeed Dawkins vehement attacks against Christianity are a by product of his actual Crusade. His point is to have science taught as science is, and not convoluted with religion.
It just so happens that Christianity has been the most prevalent in the West to do this - to interject it's believer's views that distort mainstream science.
Recently we saw posts where Islam is becoming more active in Europe regarding Creationism - so I think we will see Islam become part of the discussion more.
I support Dawkins and think what he is doing is great. Yes, he is sometimes rude. But his points are always supported well. I have rarely read or seen something he's said that I thought was incorrect.
It is what he says that attracts me to what he is trying to do.
If religion would stay out of schools and stop attacking science, I don't think he would have much of a problem with religion. Just a guess. |
I guess I don't like Dawkins approach because I am a Christian, and I don't have the same contempt for religion that Dawkins has. Nevertheless, religion isn't the only threat to the scientific method. There is also charlatanism, greed, and sub standards, among scientists themselves.
Being an atheist does not give Dawkins a license to preach against religion in order to represent my views on the Theory of Evolution. 
Let me add this. I personally don't care what Mr. Dawkins is, does, thinks or says but if he is going to wage a war against religion, I'd like him to keep the Theory of Evolution out of it just as much as the Theory of Evolution should keep religion out of its goals.
Last edited by Scorp on Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6289
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | In other words if pseudo-science becomes synonymous with science, the integrity of the scientific method will be the first to suffer. |
Pseudoscience doesn't have anything to do with the scientific method, though. I mean I can sort of see where you're coming from here but even if pseudoscience does get accepted as if it were science that doesn't say anything about the scientific method, only the people that buy into the pseudoscience.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | In other words if pseudo-science becomes synonymous with science, the integrity of the scientific method will be the first to suffer. |
Pseudoscience doesn't have anything to do with the scientific method, though. |
I'm saying that if ID was taught as science, integrity of the scientific method would be the first to suffer.
| Quote: | | I mean I can sort of see where you're coming from here but even if pseudoscience does get accepted as if it were science that doesn't say anything about the scientific method, only the people that buy into the pseudoscience. |
It says everything about scientific methodology. Pseudo science cannot meet its rigors, therefore, In order to call ID science, the scientific method would have to be compromised. That is what we don't want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6289
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been admitted in court that ID does not fit the parameters necessary to be called "science."
It's in no way a threat to the scientific method itself.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | It's been admitted in court that ID does not fit the parameters necessary to be called "science."
It's in no way a threat to the scientific method itself. |
"The history of scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. The development and elaboration of rules for scientific reasoning and investigation has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and many eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of one or another approach to establishing scientific knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
I'm not sure I understand your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8233
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: |
Yes, indeed Dawkins vehement attacks against Christianity are a by product of his actual Crusade. His point is to have science taught as science is, and not convoluted with religion. |
Hi Admin,
Yes, this is definitely one of his main points, but certainly not the only one. Dawkins is one of several prominent "intellectual atheists". There are a bunch of them, and they are starting to become more and more organized.
Every year they have a conference called 'Beyond Belief'. It attracts the very top people like Dawkins and Sam Harris, Ann Druyan, Daniel Dennett, Steven Weinberg, etc.
You can download them for free:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/559821
That's the 2006 conference; the 2007 lectures are also available on-line.
Anyways, I've spent the last few months delving deeper into intellectual atheism, and there are a lot of interesting themes and results. Some of the main ones are:
1. First century morality + nuclear weapons are an extremely bad mix.
2. Religious feelings are caused by an area of the brain. People who are religious just have a very active "God-Spot" in the brain.
3. Religious moderates are much more dangerous than people generally think, because they provide cover in many different ways for crazy fundamentalists.
4. We as a society have to get rid of the taboo of criticizing religion, because there is currently a 'force-field' around it which makes it absolutely off-limits for criticism. Without criticism, there is no possibility of change.
5. We as a species should try to build a lasting, robust civilization which is based on rationality and reason rather than faith and dogma.
6. Not all religions are equal, and what they do have in common, they don't teach equally well. For example, it is objectively harder to turn a Jain into a suicide bomber than it is to turn a Christian into a suicide bomber, who in turn is objectively harder to turn into a suicide bomber than a Muslim.
7. If we got rid of religion, we would not get rid of morality, because morality above all has a biological basis.
Anyways, there are a bunch of other themes, but it's all very interesting.
| admin wrote: |
If religion would stay out of schools and stop attacking science, I don't think he would have much of a problem with religion. Just a guess. |
Politics as well... The real danger is mixing religion with politics, which unfortunately is what ALWAYS happens.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8233
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: |
I guess I don't like Dawkins approach because I am a Christian, and I don't have the same contempt for religion that Dawkins has. |
It's not contempt, but rather a profound concern for the future of our species.
Modern intellectual atheism is based largely on the idea that we should be rational and use reason, logic, and science as much as we can, or else we're going to be in major trouble. In a very fundamental way, Dawkins doesn't say what he says out of hate, but rather out of concern and caring. It just doesn't always seem that way because of his snooty British accent.
The strange thing is that everyone here (religious people included) completely understand what this means when it comes to any activity other than religion.
Try this little exercise: Wander through the threads of this discussion board, and read some posts which are pro-religion, pro-God, or pro-Christianity. Substitute the word 'Marduk' or 'Zeus' or 'Poseidon' for every occurrence of the word 'God' and read it again. Watch how absurd it becomes.
For example, "I don't have any scientific evidence that God exists. I have faith. Just look at the world around you; the evidence for God is everywhere."
If a Christian says this, then other Christians don't think twice about it. Perfectly reasonable, right? But what about this:
"I don't have any scientific evidence that Zeus exists. I have faith. Just look at the world around you; the evidence for Zeus is everywhere."
Suddenly, everyone (Christians included) see that it's ridiculous.
This should be disturbing. The *logic* of the sentence is identical. Only the god changed.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
