You don't have to love Richard Dawkins; you don't have to agree with his opinions on religion; but when it comes to science and a certain major American political party's denialism, I don't think you really get to argue.
"To die in ignorance of [the theory of evolutions'] elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature or a beautiful sunset." - Richard Dawkins
p.s. Don't read the comments if you want to persist in the belief that Americans are, as a whole, thoughtful, critically-thinking individuals.
p.p.s. For another example of the behavior and critical thinking skills of an evolution denialist, how about this?
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dawkins. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Thursday, April 15, 2010
And now I have read some articles
(This is the immediate follow-up from the previous post. Read that one first.)
From the Times article, I gather that Prof. Dawkins is, indeed, hoping to have the Pope arrested during his visit to the UK in September. He and Mr. Hitchens have retained lawyers, and they are building a case. If there is evidence that the Pope has participated in and sanctioned a cover-up of child rape cases, then it does seem that he is answerable to the law. My first reaction is tho think "Now that's going a little far, isn't it?" but really, that just my own latent thoughs, built-in-by-years-of-indocrtination, that the Pope and other such religious figures are untouchable. But that should not be so, should it, simply because they have their own supernatural belief system that says they are answerable to an imaginary higher calling? Why, when they commit a crime, should they not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us?
The New York Daily News article has this quote from Prof. Dawkins' blog: "I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it."
He wants to create uproar and outrage which is, indeed, for publicity. Calling it a "stunt" is also true in some sense, except for the fact that the ethics behind it are sound, and the backing is not disingenuous.
BBC News has a couple of gems, gathered from elsewhere:
From The Guardian and columnist George Monbiot: "Picture the pope awaiting trial in British prison, and you begin to grasp the implications of the radical idea that has never been applied: equality before the law."
Robert Pigott, The BBC's religious affairs correspondent, said "The controversy over alleged Papal involvement in the cover-up of child sex abuse is providing atheists with a stick with which to beat religion."
Rather, I think, if a stick has been provided, it seems to me that religion itself has provided it. A stick that I think we all agree we would rather not have, and a stick that it seems Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are trying to break.
Strip away the religion--the myths and trappings that go along with the idea of "The Pope"; remove the titles and monikers on which generations have conferred respect, and how would the case be judged?
If "it has been alleged that Mr. Smith covered up the systematic sexual abuse of children in his neighborhood organization," would that make people feel differently?
Where do all the sanctimonious "Think of the children!" pleaders go when something like this happens?
Arrest the Pope? A little extreme? Yeah, sure it is. But is it more extreme than the systematic child abuse perpetuated by the Roman Catholic church for decades?
From the Times article, I gather that Prof. Dawkins is, indeed, hoping to have the Pope arrested during his visit to the UK in September. He and Mr. Hitchens have retained lawyers, and they are building a case. If there is evidence that the Pope has participated in and sanctioned a cover-up of child rape cases, then it does seem that he is answerable to the law. My first reaction is tho think "Now that's going a little far, isn't it?" but really, that just my own latent thoughs, built-in-by-years-of-indocrtination, that the Pope and other such religious figures are untouchable. But that should not be so, should it, simply because they have their own supernatural belief system that says they are answerable to an imaginary higher calling? Why, when they commit a crime, should they not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us?
The New York Daily News article has this quote from Prof. Dawkins' blog: "I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it."
He wants to create uproar and outrage which is, indeed, for publicity. Calling it a "stunt" is also true in some sense, except for the fact that the ethics behind it are sound, and the backing is not disingenuous.
BBC News has a couple of gems, gathered from elsewhere:
From The Guardian and columnist George Monbiot: "Picture the pope awaiting trial in British prison, and you begin to grasp the implications of the radical idea that has never been applied: equality before the law."
Robert Pigott, The BBC's religious affairs correspondent, said "The controversy over alleged Papal involvement in the cover-up of child sex abuse is providing atheists with a stick with which to beat religion."
Rather, I think, if a stick has been provided, it seems to me that religion itself has provided it. A stick that I think we all agree we would rather not have, and a stick that it seems Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are trying to break.
Strip away the religion--the myths and trappings that go along with the idea of "The Pope"; remove the titles and monikers on which generations have conferred respect, and how would the case be judged?
If "it has been alleged that Mr. Smith covered up the systematic sexual abuse of children in his neighborhood organization," would that make people feel differently?
Where do all the sanctimonious "Think of the children!" pleaders go when something like this happens?
Arrest the Pope? A little extreme? Yeah, sure it is. But is it more extreme than the systematic child abuse perpetuated by the Roman Catholic church for decades?
I have only seen the headlines
Based on the headlines alone, I am going to form an opinion. Then I'll go read the articles and see if it changes.
Apparently, atheists have demanded that the Pope be arrested in connection with the sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. I should say, the recent ones.
The headlines are as such:
"Atheists Demand Pope's Arrest in UK" (I think that means that some atheists in the UK have called for the Pope's arrest.)
"Atheist Richard Dawkins backs campaign to arrest Pope"
"Atheist writer Richard Dawkins wants criminal case vs. Pope Benedict XVI for sex abuse scandal"
"Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI"
What I am thinking is that Prof. Dawkins is trying to draw some public attention to this case from a perspective outside the protective shell of religion and the Vatican's own manner of handling "internal disciplinary issues." In a criminal justice sense, there must be some liability, somewhere, in this whole mess. I'm guessing he's thinking about this as a long-term, systematic abuse of human rights, and thinks that someone should be held accountable to some entity other than the Vatican.
Here's what the Vatican has to say:
"Vatican spokesman: Atheist campaign to arrest Pope is publicity stunt"
Well, duh.
Apparently, atheists have demanded that the Pope be arrested in connection with the sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. I should say, the recent ones.
The headlines are as such:
"Atheists Demand Pope's Arrest in UK" (I think that means that some atheists in the UK have called for the Pope's arrest.)
"Atheist Richard Dawkins backs campaign to arrest Pope"
"Atheist writer Richard Dawkins wants criminal case vs. Pope Benedict XVI for sex abuse scandal"
"Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI"
What I am thinking is that Prof. Dawkins is trying to draw some public attention to this case from a perspective outside the protective shell of religion and the Vatican's own manner of handling "internal disciplinary issues." In a criminal justice sense, there must be some liability, somewhere, in this whole mess. I'm guessing he's thinking about this as a long-term, systematic abuse of human rights, and thinks that someone should be held accountable to some entity other than the Vatican.
Here's what the Vatican has to say:
"Vatican spokesman: Atheist campaign to arrest Pope is publicity stunt"
Well, duh.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Out with the Old?
"Old" atheism = quietly sitting in the corner, keeping it to yourself.
"New" atheism = not quietly sitting in the corner, keeping it to yourself.
That's pretty much it.
It's not like Prof. Dawkins has found a cutting edge way to not believe in gods, or Mr. Harris has broken new ground in disbelief, or Mr. Hitchens is in possession of an innovative manner of unbelieving, or Prof. Myers has distilled a previously unknown debunking of the supernatural mindset.
They, and others, are just talking about it, and we have the technology to know that they are talking about it. Often at the moment they talk about it. And their talking about it has made others who also disbelieve less afraid to talk about it.
Though, in geological terms, I am a "new" atheist, having only been one for about 20 years. That's not even half a blink of an eye in the roughly 4.5 billion years the planet has been chugging along without the aid of Odin or Zeus, Yahweh or Baal.
"New" atheism = not quietly sitting in the corner, keeping it to yourself.
That's pretty much it.
It's not like Prof. Dawkins has found a cutting edge way to not believe in gods, or Mr. Harris has broken new ground in disbelief, or Mr. Hitchens is in possession of an innovative manner of unbelieving, or Prof. Myers has distilled a previously unknown debunking of the supernatural mindset.
They, and others, are just talking about it, and we have the technology to know that they are talking about it. Often at the moment they talk about it. And their talking about it has made others who also disbelieve less afraid to talk about it.
Though, in geological terms, I am a "new" atheist, having only been one for about 20 years. That's not even half a blink of an eye in the roughly 4.5 billion years the planet has been chugging along without the aid of Odin or Zeus, Yahweh or Baal.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
the a word
My “religious” beliefs have not changed much since I was sixteen. I was raised in a Lutheran church; my grandfather is a Lutheran minister. We went to church most every Sunday. I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran church. I went to “growth group” during the week and youth group events on weekends. Actually, I was pretty involved.
It was a thinking environment. Discussion and learning were encouraged by both my church and my family. My father is a scientist; yay evolution! We were not Missouri or Wisconsin Synod or any of the “deviant” Lutheran sects. We were ALC/LCA, then ELCA Lutherans. My family still is. Somewhere around the age of 16, though, I made some new friends and was exposed to more ideas and other perceptions, and the idea of a patriarchal god started to seem oppressive to me. The concept of “sin” became insulting.
I went through my obligatory angry feminist goddess phase in college and my earth mother spirituality, but I never really believed in the concept of a “god” or “goddess” in a supernatural sense: the idea that there is a being of some sort who is responsible for “it all.” Looking back, I have been an atheist since I was 16, but I really came into it in the past ten years or so. Add in the current religio-political climate in America the rise of fundamentalism all over the world, and my views on the subject have become more solid.
After reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I realized that I had never actually used the word “atheist” to describe myself. Even to me, with my religious sensibilities, the word had been given a patina of negativity, and, subconsciously, I had not wanted to describe myself as such.
I started to wonder what would happen if I did. What would change? I decided it was important to me to just say it. Not to randomly bring it up, apropos of nothing, but if religion came up, and there were a place for it, I would identify myself as such and see what happened. After all, Christians in this country seem to assume that we are all Christians, and they tend to throw around their Christian beliefs apropos of nothing, and lay that mantle over everyone around them.
It was time for good, nonbelieving people to stand up and say it.
So nothing is different. Just a word. I have not changed. I do not believe in the concept of a supernatural god. I am an atheist.
It was a thinking environment. Discussion and learning were encouraged by both my church and my family. My father is a scientist; yay evolution! We were not Missouri or Wisconsin Synod or any of the “deviant” Lutheran sects. We were ALC/LCA, then ELCA Lutherans. My family still is. Somewhere around the age of 16, though, I made some new friends and was exposed to more ideas and other perceptions, and the idea of a patriarchal god started to seem oppressive to me. The concept of “sin” became insulting.
I went through my obligatory angry feminist goddess phase in college and my earth mother spirituality, but I never really believed in the concept of a “god” or “goddess” in a supernatural sense: the idea that there is a being of some sort who is responsible for “it all.” Looking back, I have been an atheist since I was 16, but I really came into it in the past ten years or so. Add in the current religio-political climate in America the rise of fundamentalism all over the world, and my views on the subject have become more solid.
After reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I realized that I had never actually used the word “atheist” to describe myself. Even to me, with my religious sensibilities, the word had been given a patina of negativity, and, subconsciously, I had not wanted to describe myself as such.
I started to wonder what would happen if I did. What would change? I decided it was important to me to just say it. Not to randomly bring it up, apropos of nothing, but if religion came up, and there were a place for it, I would identify myself as such and see what happened. After all, Christians in this country seem to assume that we are all Christians, and they tend to throw around their Christian beliefs apropos of nothing, and lay that mantle over everyone around them.
It was time for good, nonbelieving people to stand up and say it.
So nothing is different. Just a word. I have not changed. I do not believe in the concept of a supernatural god. I am an atheist.
Monday, March 9, 2009
What's it all about?
Prof Dawkins should be pleased. Not only is my son's stuffed lemur named after him, but I deferred my enjoyment of the premiere America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12, for him.
It's wonderful go somewhere and come home feeling like you might be just a little bit smarter.
(That's not exactly what Top Model does for me.)
This is especially true when you don't get out much because you have a new-ish baby, and because you have a new-ish baby, you are still a little stupid in general.
This past week, I had the surprise opportunity to attend Richard Dawkins' lecture at the University of Minnesota, entitled "The Purpose of Purpose," As PZ Myers put it, "This talk presented an overview of how we should look at the appearance of design in the universe, for a general public."
The house was packed, which was a wonderful thing to see. Being an atheist in America can make you feel isolated, especially during the faux Great Awakening we have been suffering these past years, and when one is surrounded by data showing that America is only ahead of Turkey for public acceptance of evolution, and 63% of Americans believe that "humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being." Plus, as a bonus, "64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom."
What's a Science Fan to do?
The "Why Question" is one that humans always pose, and Prof. Dawkins suggests that the question of purpose is only sensible when one is considering a machine or an object, but it does not work when you attempt to apply it to something such as The Matterhorn. Purpose has been pondered for ages, and humans usually relate purpose back to themselves, such as the example Prof. Dawkins gave: it was once believed that cattle and sheep were given life in order to keep their meat fresh until we are ready to consume it. Yeah, why not? That meat would be bad in under a week if it were just hanging out in a field without the divine spark.
We laugh at such things now. But which of our divinations of purpose will be laughed at by coming generations?
People are still using objects to illustrate the genius of god's creation, even when that creation has been highly altered by humans, such as the famous case of the banana man (which should, of course, be a mystery novel). I see something like that, a man demonstrating how a banana is perfectly formed for the hand of man, while Kirk Cameron of TV's "Growing Pains" looks on, and am silenced with wide-eyed, open-mouthed wonder, eventually followed by the laughter of disbelief, but many, many people see that and nod in all-knowing understanding.
The questions after the lecture were generally rambling and disappointing. One of the questioners exhibited a common problem that believers have when they are confronted with atheists: they cannot comprehend life without a god, or "meaning" without a god. They think that because we don't have a god, we must have replaced him with something, like smoking for alcohol or French fries for smoking. They think that we must be attending the Church of Evolution with Pastor Darwin, everyone in the congregation donning matching white beards, and that we race about, reducing everything we see to its material parts, incapable of wonder and joy. That because we don't have a god, we have no reason to do good, no framework for morals. That because art or music appears to have no evolutionary purpose, it must therefore be useless, and we do not appreciate it. Even love must be alien to us, as we do not have, nor do we want, the love of a god.
But fear of divine judgment does not seem to be a good motivation for doing good. Nor does doing good to get god's attention and approval. Furthermore, it does not seem that More Religion in America has made us more caring, more responsible, more diplomatic, more accepting, or more healthy. In my ethical sensibility, Doing Good and behaving responsibly are societal issues as well as a personal ones: everyone benefits, including me. That sounds like a pretty good deal.
When it comes to a sense of wonder about the natural world, I think it's reductionist to say "god made it." For me, appreciation and a continuing sense of wonder come from a deeper understanding of how things work. Music and art, poetry and literature: these are all human achievements that are deserving of credit to their creator, not to a god or his 33 year old virgin son. It is a wonder that humans have come so far in such a comparatively short period of time and have invented not only progressively more complicated forms of technology for making our lives easier (go figure out that one), and that we have found beautiful ways to express ourselves to other humans.
I still have a sense of purpose, and it's pretty much to take care of myself so that I will be capable of taking care of others. You know the thing they tell you on the airplane: put your oxygen mask on before assisting others? That sums it up pretty well.
p.s. The French Fry should never be a stand in for something else. The French Fry should be loved and appreciated for the beautiful thing that it is.
It's wonderful go somewhere and come home feeling like you might be just a little bit smarter.
(That's not exactly what Top Model does for me.)
This is especially true when you don't get out much because you have a new-ish baby, and because you have a new-ish baby, you are still a little stupid in general.
This past week, I had the surprise opportunity to attend Richard Dawkins' lecture at the University of Minnesota, entitled "The Purpose of Purpose," As PZ Myers put it, "This talk presented an overview of how we should look at the appearance of design in the universe, for a general public."
The house was packed, which was a wonderful thing to see. Being an atheist in America can make you feel isolated, especially during the faux Great Awakening we have been suffering these past years, and when one is surrounded by data showing that America is only ahead of Turkey for public acceptance of evolution, and 63% of Americans believe that "humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being." Plus, as a bonus, "64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom."
What's a Science Fan to do?
The "Why Question" is one that humans always pose, and Prof. Dawkins suggests that the question of purpose is only sensible when one is considering a machine or an object, but it does not work when you attempt to apply it to something such as The Matterhorn. Purpose has been pondered for ages, and humans usually relate purpose back to themselves, such as the example Prof. Dawkins gave: it was once believed that cattle and sheep were given life in order to keep their meat fresh until we are ready to consume it. Yeah, why not? That meat would be bad in under a week if it were just hanging out in a field without the divine spark.
We laugh at such things now. But which of our divinations of purpose will be laughed at by coming generations?
People are still using objects to illustrate the genius of god's creation, even when that creation has been highly altered by humans, such as the famous case of the banana man (which should, of course, be a mystery novel). I see something like that, a man demonstrating how a banana is perfectly formed for the hand of man, while Kirk Cameron of TV's "Growing Pains" looks on, and am silenced with wide-eyed, open-mouthed wonder, eventually followed by the laughter of disbelief, but many, many people see that and nod in all-knowing understanding.
The questions after the lecture were generally rambling and disappointing. One of the questioners exhibited a common problem that believers have when they are confronted with atheists: they cannot comprehend life without a god, or "meaning" without a god. They think that because we don't have a god, we must have replaced him with something, like smoking for alcohol or French fries for smoking. They think that we must be attending the Church of Evolution with Pastor Darwin, everyone in the congregation donning matching white beards, and that we race about, reducing everything we see to its material parts, incapable of wonder and joy. That because we don't have a god, we have no reason to do good, no framework for morals. That because art or music appears to have no evolutionary purpose, it must therefore be useless, and we do not appreciate it. Even love must be alien to us, as we do not have, nor do we want, the love of a god.
But fear of divine judgment does not seem to be a good motivation for doing good. Nor does doing good to get god's attention and approval. Furthermore, it does not seem that More Religion in America has made us more caring, more responsible, more diplomatic, more accepting, or more healthy. In my ethical sensibility, Doing Good and behaving responsibly are societal issues as well as a personal ones: everyone benefits, including me. That sounds like a pretty good deal.
When it comes to a sense of wonder about the natural world, I think it's reductionist to say "god made it." For me, appreciation and a continuing sense of wonder come from a deeper understanding of how things work. Music and art, poetry and literature: these are all human achievements that are deserving of credit to their creator, not to a god or his 33 year old virgin son. It is a wonder that humans have come so far in such a comparatively short period of time and have invented not only progressively more complicated forms of technology for making our lives easier (go figure out that one), and that we have found beautiful ways to express ourselves to other humans.
I still have a sense of purpose, and it's pretty much to take care of myself so that I will be capable of taking care of others. You know the thing they tell you on the airplane: put your oxygen mask on before assisting others? That sums it up pretty well.
p.s. The French Fry should never be a stand in for something else. The French Fry should be loved and appreciated for the beautiful thing that it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)