Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Friday | Main | Friday Night Funnies »

I'm Out

Fundamentalist Religion and Science

In his new book, The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect." Dawkins discusses religion, the teaching of evolution and creationism in science class, and his call for atheists to "out" themselves.



Audio 7.1MB 30'01
Quicktime Required

 

Comments

I agree that atheist need to be more open about it.

I'm an atheist and open about it. Not aggressively open, and trying to unconvince people of their different beliefs, but very open that I am an atheist.

other than poor marriage choices (bride of christ), what does Dawkins have against Mother Theresa?

I certainly can't speak for Professor Dawkins, but I think this interview of Christopher Hitchens captures the essence of the case against her.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens164.html

No one should pressure others to believe in God, and certainly most of what organized religions say today seems pretty much "poppycock".

Yet to make the assumption that truth can be reduced to concepts, regardless of the poppycock of organized religion, does not have any scientific or other basis.

Should we not consider that some truth may not be within the realm of human perception and some may be available to the mind, but not to the conceptual apparatus of the brain (e.g. music, intuition)?

There is no basis for assuming away the possibility that things like art, music, religious experience, and even intuition can provide access to truth that cannot be adequately explained conceptually.

The desire for certainty that can be independently substantiated and imposed on others through logic is not the same thing as the desire to know the truth. Truth is not the same thing as certainty.

If someone has a religious experience the experience is different from the explanation of the experience. If the explanation can be shown to be poppycock, that does not mean the experience itself is not an experience of truth, even if poorly understood conceptually.

thanks, norm

An eye-opening article. I have never seen anything in the media portray MT as anything but "pre-saint".

Like that's a good thing.

Should we not consider that some truth may not be within the realm of human perception and some may be available to the mind, but not to the conceptual apparatus of the brain (e.g. music, intuition)?
No and why should we? It would be defeatism and hamper our intellectual evolution to be so pessimistic - imagination is key to understanding the abstract.

…I'm out too.

Correcting the negative stereotypes many people have about those who have a purely naturalistc view of the world is extremely important. Many people actually still equate athesim with satanism.

Who is more sincere, one who does good solely for its own sake or one who does so out of fear or the promise of reward?

"other than poor marriage choices (bride of christ), what does Dawkins have against Mother Theresa?"

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

see: Controversy and critics

or just search for the ghoul of calcutta

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives