Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Dawkins is a world leading expert of evolution and wouldn’t have been such a staunch critic of religion had he not first seen the attacks that the religious made on evolution. Ken Ham, creationism and young earth creationists are too much to stomach. I’ve seen it numerous times myself when parents come into school screaming about their kids being taught evolution and when religious groups try to tear down the teaching or curriculum of evolution. It’s one thing to have your beliefs but when these people start misrepresenting the science and attacking it as wrong and saying the science is evil and so are the people who promote it (scientists/educators) . That’s when scientists and people like myself say religion becomes a big problem. These people fear that if people accept evolution as the fact that it is, then their followers will start to question the rest of the religion.

    • Nobody denies that Dawkins has in the past been quite vocal in his opinion that religion does more harm than good.

      In fact, that point was made in the article in the Times of London. The Times is NOT a religious newspaper.

      But you are claiming that the Times article is false even though you have no evidence to support your claim.

      That is not the way scientists deal with a question. Science looks at the data before it arrives at a conclusion. You are not doing that.

      It has been ten months since the Times published that article. Can you point to anything Dawkins has said or written since that article was published in which Dawkins has stated that the alleged quotations within that article were fake or in which he has said that he was misrepresented in the article.

      Otherwise you are basing your objections on what you WANT to be true rather than on the published evidence.

    • Relax my friend. It’s my view and you can reject it if you wish. Why would you let yourself get so worked up? This isn’t a peer reviewed journal article in Nature magazine. We’re here for conversation and we have to learn to celebrate differences of opinion and be able to be civil with one another. I don’t ask people to give quotes and write papers to defend each of their questions, replies or what have you. Our questions, responses and various commentary aren’t subject to strict rules such that I can’t make a comment without citing 10 academic papers in support. You certainly don’t. Why do you even care so much? Keep an open mind and consider that maybe, just maybe the story in this paper got it wrong. Maybe they didn’t care that they got it wrong. Maybe they just knew it’d be such a popular story line to have the world’s most eminent anti-religious scientist say that religion is good in some way. You have pushed too hard for me to have any interest in providing evidence because people convinced against their will, are if the same opinion still.

    • If you had limited yourself to saying that you found the article difficult to believe, that would have been no problem.

      If you had added that in the past Dawkins has not held that view that would also have been no problem.

      If you had stated that you thought it was likely that the reporter had misrepresented Mr. Dawkins that also would not have been a problem.

      But you went far beyond simply voicing your opinion. You made accusations and insisted that this was a dishonest, religiously motivated article and that it is propaganda.

      You did not say that it was your opinion that the article was propaganda. You did not say that it was likely that Mr. Dawkins was used in a misleading and dishonest way.

      Furthermore, if you produced a link to a statement made by Mr. Dawkins after that article was published in which Mr. Dawkins stated that he was misrepresented in that article, I would be persuaded and it would not be against my will.

    • I may occasionally air my grievances about some religions, but this guy is one of my heroes. And this is an article from religious press:

      As busy as he is with the weight of one of the two biggest religions on his shoulders, I have massive respect that he takes the time to understand this and advocate for it.

    • Chris,

      I have a lot of respect for your attitude on this subject.

      But one thing that many people who have a problem with religion don't understand is something that every mathemetician accepts in arithemetic. In arithemetic, if we are speaking in base 10 and if all other standard assumptions are true, there is only ONE correct answer for the question 2 + 2 =?

      There may have been a thousand false answers given throughout time to a specific arithemetic question but there is only ONE correct answer.

      If Deity exists then there are many false answers to the question: How should man worship and serve Deity? If there are millions of false answers to that question that in no way negates the validity of the correct answer.

    • If one believes that religion is a figment of man's imagination then all are wrong because there would then be no God.

      But if Deity exists, then reality is not determined by what the various religions believe is right or wrong anymore than the beliefs of two second graders one of whom fervently believes that 2 plus 2 equals 3 and the other of whom is just as emphatic in his belief that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

      Reality is not determined by what humans believe is true. As a scientist, you should realize this.

      If Deity exists then reality is determined by Deity and not by the beliefs of humans.

      If Deity does not exist then reality is also not determined by what humans believe.