Richard Dawkins on evolution and the Holocaust

[SmokeOnTheWater]

A strongly worded essay by one of Britain's best known scientists (and atheists) making the argument that both evolution and the Holocaust should be put beyond reasonable debate;

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6805656.ece

[Y_I_Otter]

Professional God-deniers, to the degree that they become famous enough to make a tidy living at it, are virtually indistinguishable from those people who manage a cushy living as professional Christian fundies.

If there's something you have to acknowledge about the foremost professional Holocaust deniers it's that, like both of the above, they're in-your-face evangelical about their pet subject and are prone to make controversial comments. Theirs is a crowded field and there's only so much room at the top.

I think Dawkins has more in common with the upper echelon of Holocaust deniers than he realises.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Originally Posted by Y_I_Otter

Professional God-deniers, to the degree that they become famous enough to make a tidy living at it, are virtually indistinguishable from those people who manage a cushy living as professional Christian fundies.

If there's something you have to acknowledge about the foremost professional Holocaust deniers it's that, like both of the above, they're in-your-face evangelical about their pet subject and are prone to make controversial comments. Theirs is a crowded field and there's only so much room at the top.

I think Dawkins has more in common with the upper echelon of Holocaust deniers than he realises.

I agree about Holocaust deniers and also about Dawkins, whom I think is rightly criticised by the likes of Karen Armstrong (whose latest book I'm reading atm) for always going after easy targets like bigoted Bible Belt pulpit thumpers of limited intellect and not the more thoughtful mainstream theologians he could be debating.

One point of interest to me about Dawkins's piece though is what he says about free speech. He's saying that because creationists are allowed free rein, he and others like him are forced to spend large amounts of time and effort debunking their assertions when they'd far rather be doing something else and their students would benefit if they did. It's given me (as someone who supports free speech) pause for thought.

[Y_I_Otter]

Originally Posted by SmokeOnTheWater

I agree about Holocaust deniers and also about Dawkins, whom I think is rightly criticised by the likes of Karen Armstrong (whose latest book I'm reading atm) for always going after easy targets like bigoted Bible Belt pulpit thumpers of limited intellect and not the more thoughtful mainstream theologians he could be debating.

He never will debate that breed of theologian. Neither will the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. Like professional Holocaust deniers, professional God-deniers deliberately limit themselves to the easy targets and for them, literalist fundie loonies fit the bill to a tee.

The match-up I'd give my left arm to witness would be Dawkins vs. Terry Eagleton, who began his brilliant London Review of Books review of The God Delusion with the memorable line, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”

[SmokeOnTheWater]

True, and rep coming up for that link (which I'll read properly when I've got time).

[Takahata Y]

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”

What is this knowledge that he is missing? Is he supposed to go through religious books and makes theological arguments against them? That's not what he's arguing against. He doesn't argue against religion, he dismisses religion and then argues for evolution.

[Maldoror]

In America, there is an everyone-is-special, 'feel-good' culture promoted by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and soccer moms. For some reason, everyone deserves a chance to be heard no matter what they're selling. Christians will cry discrimination if they are excluded. I remember a teacher apologizing before we went into the chapter on evolution.

A bunch of God-worshipers took over a school board here in Pennsylvania when the parents fell asleep at the wheel. They were all promptly ousted, though.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Originally Posted by Maldoror

In America, there is an everyone-is-special, 'feel-good' culture promoted by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and soccer moms. For some reason, everyone deserves a chance to be heard no matter what they're selling. Christians will cry discrimination if they are excluded. I remember a teacher apologizing before we went into the chapter on evolution.

A bunch of God-worshipers took over a school board here in Pennsylvania when the parents fell asleep at the wheel. They were all promptly ousted, though.

Christians in America seem to be a breed apart from what they're like in other countries. My godparents' family (to whom I'm also related through my grandparents) are Christians and also intelligent people with whom I've had many a discussion about religion and life (and sometimes science as my cousin is a doctor).

In the US though it almost seems like you have to check your brains in at the door before you enter a church. How else would the rapture books acquire a following (these people actually BELIEVE they're going to go floating up through the clouds en masse?!), or a complete looneytune like Kent Hovind be taken seriously as an authority on evolution?

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

[Y_I_Otter]

Originally Posted by Takahata Y

What is this knowledge that he is missing? Is he supposed to go through religious books and makes theological arguments against them?

That's clearly beyond his abilities. The name of the book in question is The God DELUSION. He does nothing to prove that God is a delusion beyond claiming that the version of God favoured by Christian fundamentalists is in error.

[Takahata Y]

Originally Posted by Y_I_Otter

That's clearly beyond his abilities.

Dawkins is a scientist. He, like most scientists, has no desire to waste his life engaging in debates about which fairy tale is more of a delusion and which isn't.

The onus isn't on Dawkins to disprove anything, or else you should disprove to me why I shouldn't worship a flying tea pot. After all, you haven't disproven that it's a delusion to believe in it. It is impossible to disprove anything.

Dawkins' argument is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence for religion, while there is a great deal of evidence for evolution.