|
|
Post by robin on Apr 12, 2010 14:13:50 GMT -8
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2928120/Pope-arrest-plot.htmlInteresting story here. I think this is a lame attempt by atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, to smear a Christian institution. I wonder if they would eagerly seek the arrest of Roman Polanski, the movie director who raped a 13 year old. What about other crimes against humanity, like Muslim Clerics for support terrorists? The atheists are so brave.  They go after one of the few institutions and men who they know will turn the other cheek. Also, for Dawkins to personally involve himself in this witch hunt harms his credibility in his field of expertise (science and evolution), IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 13, 2010 5:39:11 GMT -8
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2928120/Pope-arrest-plot.htmlInteresting story here. I think this is a lame attempt by atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, to smear a Christian institution. I wonder if they would eagerly seek the arrest of Roman Polanski, the movie director who raped a 13 year old. What about other crimes against humanity, like Muslim Clerics for support terrorists? The atheists are so brave. They go after one of the few institutions and men who they know will turn the other cheek. Also, for Dawkins to personally involve himself in this witch hunt harms his credibility in his field of expertise (science and evolution), IMHO. It is indeed ridiculous as far as I can tell. From my perception of Dawkin's reasoning he seems to have beef with the fact that church officials often receive a priviledged treatment (for example not being charged for covering up a crime - something that anybody else would get charged for). So there he goes. There might even be something about it that should be adressed. However, the mode he chose is a sorry attempt to seek media attention through polemic. It kinda reminds me of the German homeschoolers we discussed. In which way this should harm his authority in biology is something I don't get, though.  PS: I doubt that the Catholic church ever turned the other cheek when facing an opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 13, 2010 13:59:03 GMT -8
I would imagine that a scientist would want to appear to be an objective observer. Entangling himself in this type of matter could cause others to see him as anti-christian, and therefore causing them to question if he really is a objective observer of facts. Dawkins uses much of his scientific findings and observations in order to challenge the church, and the notion that a God created the universe. I just don't think this kind of tactic will advance his cause, but it has the potential of hurting that cause. But that's just fine with me.
Fair enough. I'm not a Catholic defender, but I imagine that we can expect very little in response from the Pope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 13, 2010 18:40:19 GMT -8
Was Pope John Paul's forgiveness of his assassin a case of turning to other cheek?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 14, 2010 1:43:38 GMT -8
Fair enough. I'm not a Catholic defender, but I imagine that we can expect very little in response from the Pope. Getting the Pope arrested will probably turn out as a classic own goal*. The center of attention will be drawn away from the misbehavior of catholic clergymen and on to the injustice done to the innocent Pope who can take advantage of the victim role. Given that he indeed is innocent. Caiuse if it is true what is written in the media these days (that former Cardinal Ratzinger knowingly covered up child molestation within the church and explicitly ordered his bishops to remain silent on the issue) we are dealing with an authentic scandal here and Richard Dawkins would be more than right to ask for legal consequences. His agitational way of proceeding remains uncalled for in my opinion though. As for his credibility as a scientist: I hear what you are saying. However, his scientific credentials are out there for the entire scientific community to evaluate and thus far he seems to have been able to convince in his field of study. That scientific results will eventually affect your worldview goes without saying (if you were as familiar with the state of the art of evolutionary biology as he is, perhaps you would come to different conclusions here or there). It becomes problematic when it happens vice versa; if the worldview affects the scientific results. But thus far I don't see how this applies to Dawkins and thus the dismissal of his scientific work because of his atheism seems premature to me. It even brings about the suspicion that there might be a desire to discredit him. Wishful thinking?  Anyway, the quality of his work has to be estimated by fellow scientists, not laymen. That's probably why he doesn't care at all what creationists think about his scientific work. He knows their opinions mean nothing to the truth. He is also well aware that even if he was polite and unpolemic, none of them would believe in his findings. His aim is not to convince hardcore believers of the truth of the Theory of Evolution or the merits of his own achievements but to activate the significant number of the population who doesn't belong to any religion but nevertheless has accepted a social order in which religious institutions are being unjustly privileged. He wants to get people like me out of our seats and comfort zones and tackle the taken for grantedness of the legitimacy of religion. I can't blame him. *I doubt that it is even possible to arrest the Pope, because as the head of the Vatican State he enjoys political immunity. Was Pope John Paul's forgiveness of his assassin a case of turning to other cheek? I don't think so. When John Paul forgave his assassin, the agression was already over. It is a difference if you forgive someone in the danger of an imminent second blow or when the danger is already defeated. Furthermore, turning the other cheek is not so much about the act of forgiving (in that very moment) as it is about not resisting evil. In that respect, if the shot Pope had instructed his bodyguards to let Ali Agca finish his dirty work, we would have an authentic case of turning the other cheek. But I'm sure there must have been some cases of turning the other cheek in the history of the church (there should be enough martyrs we could dig out). My generalization was not to be taken literally, you slugger . In the present case, the Spokesmen of the Vatican have already begun to use agressive, almost apocalyptic language in order to shelter the Pope from any accusations. It has become a two-way witch hunt: only a few days after the molestation-tsunami started, bishop Mixa reacted by putting the entire blame on the generation of 1968 and their sexual revolution. All sides are crying "witch!" now and it's not like the Catholic church wasn't contributing to it. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 14, 2010 13:24:16 GMT -8
I don't spend much time worrying about Dawkins reputation. I think most people know that he is not objective, and I suspect that his work in the scientific realm is effected by his personal bias. There are many atheist scientists who go about their work without spewing their hate for anything Christian the way Dawkins does.
On a side note, I enjoyed watching Dawking embarrassed himself in the movie/documentary titled, "Expelled". In regards to how life actually began he stated that he thinks that life on earth may have began from an alien species bring life to earth. How could such a brilliant person make such an obvious mistake? Not only is there nothing scientific about that view, but it does not answer the question of how life came to be, it only sends the problem to another planet. Go ahead and watch for yourself. Its fascinating!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 15, 2010 13:09:02 GMT -8
I enjoyed watching Dawking embarrassed himself I'm wondering if you can see the irony in your own statement. Probably not. Priceless!  PS: Oh and please note that the interviewer asked Dawkins if he could imagine some sort of intelligent design. To ask someone that and then insinuate that this is Dawkin's view on the issue is very dishonest. Dawkins even points out himself that this approach comes with the problem of how those extraterrestrians came into being. And then the thing when the interviewer asks Dawkins to put a figure on his certainty... pathetic.  PPS: Nobody knows how the mechanisms of life coming to being work. Not even Christians have an answer to that. Saying God did it is just as good as saying it happened by chance through a chemical process. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 15, 2010 20:03:11 GMT -8
I've said my piece on these kind of topics on the SCIENCE sub-forum ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 16, 2010 7:23:59 GMT -8
No. Why don't you go ahead and explain it.
It is a legitimate question. And Stein's comments were based on Dawkins answer.
However, Dawkins did not decline to attach a number to his certainty. Only after being asked to defend this number did he back off. Perhaps he realizes that his own confidence in his position cannot not be adequately defended. Dawkins said he was certain that there was no God, and placed the number at 99%. When asked why, he could not defend the number, but then stated it is well above 50%. And he was not even able to defend that number.
I completely agree. However, as Christians we admit that our view is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Do you think Dawkins has the courage to admit that his view is based on faith, and not science?
Dawkins knows very well that this interview was going to be somewhat of an embarrassment. That is why he tried to sue the film maker in order to have his interview removed from the movie. It is not considered very intellectual to go around claiming that little green men from Mars are wondering around the universe planting life on planets.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 7, 2010 8:39:36 GMT -8
No. Why don't you go ahead and explain it. If you so wish... taking joy from the (supposed) self-embarrasment of another person doesn't exactly highlight the best qualities of one's own character. One might argue, a person who displays such an attitude publicaly is actually embarrassing himself. No hard feelings It is a legitimate question. And Stein's comments were based on Dawkins answer. The question is legitimate, yes. What is troubling me here is the dishonesty of the interviewer that exposes itself. If you ask such a question because you want to get an idea of how sure someone is about something, that's fair enough. But pushing someone towards putting a figure on something just to go ahead and try to pick the exact number (not the certainty) apart is lamentable. "Hey Richard, how sure are you the sun is gonna shine tomorrow?" "Hard to say" "Come on, give it a go" "99%?" "why not 99,1%?" ... Had the interviewer asked Dawkins why not 10%, Dawkins could have ventured an answer of why he is so sure. Instead he is being asked why not 97%. That's ridiculous. What's the difference? 99% or 97% are both pretty sure. Why not 97,347? Why not 98,18453950673? Dawkins as well as anybody else notices that the interviewer wants to lead him on a slippery slope. So he retreats and says "well above 50%" which isn't a concrete number but still means pretty sure. Perhaps he realizes that his own confidence in his position cannot not be adequately defended. Or maybe he knows that concrete numbers are random and that the interviewer is trying to play a game. I doubt that Dawkins believes his view cannot be defended, as he elaborates his reasons at lenghts in his book The God Delusion and in numerous interviews and debates. I completely agree. However, as Christians we admit that our view is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Do you think Dawkins has the courage to admit that his view is based on faith, and not science? I don't see Richard Dawkins views on religion as science. He is a Professor of biology, not theology. As far as I can tell, he is giving us his private views which are of course influenced by or even based on his professional findings. But I haven't seen him presenting any research data on the issue of religion. I'm not Dawkin's lawyer by the way. And I don't agree with him on everything. But I find it interesting how distorted (in my opinion) creationists perceive him and how they constantly mispresent him. Dawkins knows very well that this interview was going to be somewhat of an embarrassment. That is why he tried to sue the film maker in order to have his interview removed from the movie. I agree that Dawkins sued because this would be an embarrassment. I doubt however, that the embarrassment stems from the substance of Dawkins viewpoints but rather from the way they arranged them. I'm sure the interview was longer than those few questions. The way the interviewer is acting gives me reason to believe they had the intention of discrediting Dawkins. I wouldn't be surprised if they selected parts of the interview out of context and the like. "Look at Dawkins, the Alien loony!"* Say what you like about the guy, but his argument can't be picked apart in a few minutes. It is not considered very intellectual to go around claiming that little green men from Mars are wondering around the universe planting life on planets. Oddly enough, just a few days ago Stephen Hawking, who is considered to be one of the few living geniuses, stated that aliens are out there. I'm not saying I agree. But maybe you are a bit overconfident. By the way, I'm wondering why you, who believe that dinosaurs, dragons, unicorns and the tooth fairy (just kidding) were sitting side by side on the arch, find it so hilarious that aliens could exist? *Yet another dishonesty: He is being asked if he could imagine some kind of intelligent design. Had he said: "No" they probably would have picked on that. If you ask me if I can imagine intelligent design I can give you heaps of positive answers but that doesn't mean I believe it. Think about the difference. Dawkins even mentions that this kind of intelligent design wouldn't answer the ultimate question of how life emerged from nonlife. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 7, 2010 12:39:29 GMT -8
Very well. I don't mind being called out, and perhaps I was a bit insensitive.
I don't hold any position on the existence of aliens. My point is that the belief that aliens may have been the reason for life on earth is not very scientific. It is surprising to hear something like that coming from a person who spends so much time trying to ridicule religious people for holding views that are not scientific.
I just find it interesting that Dawkins cannot imagine a God being the answer to life on earth, but he can "imagine" aliens being that answer, even if he sees it as extremely unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 8, 2010 2:01:37 GMT -8
I don't hold any position on the existence of aliens. My point is that the belief that aliens may have been the reason for life on earth is not very scientific. It is surprising to hear something like that coming from a person who spends so much time trying to ridicule religious people for holding views that are not scientific. Okay, we have to be careful not to mix a couple of things up here. 1. Dawkins is not ridiculing believers for holding unscientific views in the sense that their views aren't backed with scientific fact. For example: belief in a universe outside our universe. There is no scientific evidence for it but there isn't scientific evidence against it either. The vast majority of our opinions are unscientific because nobody is able to see through a proper scientific proceeding before coming to a viewpoint. 2. Dawkins is ridiculing people who hold unscientific beliefs in the sense that their views contradict strong scientific evidence. For example belief in a 4000 year old earth. 3. Dawkins is also ridiculing people who try to sell pseudo-science as science. For example the Intelligent Design Movement. As I see it, his alien statement falls into category #1 and doesn't stand at odds with #2 and #3. I just find it interesting that Dawkins cannot imagine a God being the answer to life on earth, but he can "imagine" aliens being that answer, even if he sees it as extremely unlikely. I'm in agreement with you here. Maybe he is afraid that if he concedes that God is a (however unlikely) possibility, his words will be twisted and misquoted. Imagine a headline: "Dawkins reckons God could exist - the author of 'The God Delusion' flip-flops on God hypothesis"... Unfortunately that isn't even such an unrealistic scenario. Spin doctoring has become custom in our media landscape. And I already noticed some time ago that Dawkins is somewhat afraid that Creationists will propagate he had a deathbed conversion (like they did with Charles Darwin)*. So that might be the reason why he is too stubborn to at least admit the possibility of God being the Creator**. *Perhaps he was ironic when he wrote that, but I couldn't help noticing the statement anyway. **To be fair: he actually did concede this possibility by stating he was "only" 99% sure of his view. That leaves God a 1% probability after all. |
|
They go after one of the few institutions and men who they know will turn the other cheek. Also, for Dawkins to personally involve himself in this witch hunt harms his credibility in his field of expertise (science and evolution), IMHO. 
