28 Dec 12
Originally posted by kd2aczNot much of a criticism as far as I can see. Just the concentration on fundies.
What are your thoughts...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
The problem with fundies is they never stop trying to take over.
Case in point is the battle to force science teachers in the US bible belt and in other countries as well, to force creation to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution which has 150 years of evidence piled up for it. That is just a tactic to sow plausible deniability on a real science for the express purpose of gaining more political power.
THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by AgergDon't call myself much of anything, and I fail to see your point in light of the article and the OP. Your thoughts depend not on mine, why not share? I thought the article was interesting and wanted to know what ya'll thought.
Are you a fundamentalist Christian kd2acz? (do you believe the world is roughly 6000 years old and stuff?)
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI know your definition of fundies is towards people of faith, specifically Christians... at least this is what I have seen in your posts. The thing I like about the article is that it shows fundamentalism can rest with those that are not religious in any way, at least this is how I read Higgs assertion of Dawkins. And this from a guy well respected in the science community that makes no claim to a faith. We are sometimes so busy categorizing people, we often don't see the trees through the forest and our own hypocrisy.
Not much of a criticism as far as I can see. Just the concentration on fundies.
The problem with fundies is they never stop tryi ... [text shortened]...
THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.
THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.[/b]
I could not have said this better myself!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by kd2aczhttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/no-one-should-be-embarrassed-to-speak-the-truth/
What are your thoughts...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
Peter Higgs, the physicist, has spoken out against Richard Dawkins’ views.
“What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. “Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”
You know, whenever I see people babbling ignorantly like this, I have this urge to strap them down Clockwork Orange style and force them to watch an hour of James Dobson or Tony Perkins or Ken Ham or Bryan Fischer, and then ask them, “Do you still think Dawkins is a fundamentalist?” The only way you can make this ridiculous comparison is by cultivating a near-total ignorance of what fundamentalists are actually like. But then I have to confess that forcing someone to correct their folly and putting them to the question is exactly what a fundamentalist would do, so I can’t. (I notice in the article that Dawkins simply refused to respond to Higgs.)
[i]
He agreed with some of Dawkins’ thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist’s approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins’ approach “embarrassing”.
Higgs is an atheist. He agrees with Dawkins that religion has lead to some ugly outcomes. But speaking out about them? Actually saying out loud in public that religion is wrong, faith is a delusion, and that there is no god? Oh dearie me, how embarrassing. Not the thing a proper gentleman would do at all.
And that’s really the problem. Society has so thoroughly beaten the default assumption of respect for religious lies into our heads that even many atheists are made deeply uncomfortable at the prospect of openly rejecting faith-based nonsense. But criticizing fellow atheists? That’s easy. That’s thoroughly sanctioned by culture. You can freely make stupid accusations against atheists without suffering the pushback you’d get if you made honest statements of fact about priests.
What I learned from this interview is mainly that Peter Higgs is an intellectual coward who retreats from his convictions in the face of potential social disapproval, and will cheerfully join in the mob in kicking a fellow atheist. He should be…embarrassed.[/i]
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI'd vote for him if he was but unfortunately (in this case)
... I think Richard Dawkins is a politician, not a scientist.
what you "think" and reality are totally different.
Regarding the video, Higgs is not disagreeing with Dawkins
but merely disagreeing with his style. Dawkins is certainly
as zealous as fundamentalists but his arguments are soundly
based on facts not fiction so the comparison should stop there.
And finally; why is anyone surprised when atheists disagree?
Atheism is not a belief system.
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudge[/b][/b]i am the bold fragments are your own personal thoughts. so long story short, you do not agree with higgs, how basically says that science and religion are incompatible or compatible in the same way spaghetti sauce and swiss clocks are compatible or incompatible.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/no-one-should-be-embarrassed-to-speak-the-truth/
[b]Peter Higgs, the physicist, has spoken out against Richard Dawkins’ views.
“What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said ...[text shortened]... heerfully join in the mob in kicking a fellow atheist. He should be…embarrassed.
they are unrelated. the main issue is that some insane people are trying to mix them, and some equally insane people are bothering with telling the first group that they shouldn't mix. do you think you should be vehement in telling insane people not to pour spaghetti sauce over their clocks? that is why dawkings is embarassing according to higgs (an opinion with which i agree). dawkings is an evolutionist scientist, yet he goes outside his field of expertise and yells to whomever is listening just how stupid everyone with different beliefs than him are.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe entire quoted section is quoted from the blog I linked to.
i am the bold fragments are your own personal thoughts. so long story short, you do not agree with higgs, how basically says that science and religion are incompatible or compatible in the same way spaghetti sauce and swiss clocks are compatible or incompatible.
they are unrelated. the main issue is that some insane people are trying to mix the ...[text shortened]... yells to whomever is listening just how stupid everyone with different beliefs than him are.
The bold bits are the words of the person who wrote the blog (PZ Myers).
The non-bold bits are where he quotes the article by Higgs.
I posted it because I agree with what PZ Myers said.
As for the rest...
Try reposting in coherent sentences and then I can respond.
However, all religions try to say things about the world.
They say things like afterlives, souls or gods exist, and that these things
effect the world.
This puts every religion squarely in the territory of science, and squarely
against science.
All religions also require irrational faith based belief.
This puts all religions squarely against the rational evidence based foundation of
science.
Pointing out that religions are not just stupid but wrong is not embarrassing.
At least not to anyone who hasn't had an irrational respect for stupidity beat into them.
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeHow do you account for scientists who happen to be Christians?
However, all religions try to say things about the world.
They say things like afterlives, souls or gods exist, and that these things
effect the world.
This puts every religion squarely in the territory of science, and squarely
against science.
All religions also require irrational faith based belief.
This puts all religions squarely against the rational evidence based foundation of
science.
They do exist, you know.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by SuzianneThey are confused.
How do you account for scientists who happen to be Christians?
They do exist, you know.
And also wrong.
People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.
The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.
What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods than
non-scientists, and biologists and physicists are the least likely to believe out of the
different scientific disciplines.
So those that study the world closest, and deal with the questions religion claims to
tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.