Professor Richard Dawkins embroiled in Twitter row over Muslim comments

[VanillaGorilla]

So after 3 pages of discussion PapaG concludes my post was hateful garbage - without reading it! Words fail me.

But I would be curious if anyone who actually read what I wrote found it hateful, whether you agree or disagree? If I were a betting woman I'd bet no.

You win the bet.

I don't see how your post could have warranted that type of reaction.

 

[PapaG]

You win the bet.

I don't see how your post could have warranted that type of reaction.

14 years of reading the same tired stuff.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

14 years of reading the same tired stuff.

I'm sure I'll get there one day.

 

[Sinobas]

I wouldn't say that Islam has contributed anything to science. Muslim armies have conquered areas that already had a scientific tradition, such as Persia, and allowed them to continue their work. It's not much more meaningful than saying Christianity brought us calculus because Issac Newton was a christian. Or that christianity put a man on the moon because most americans are christian. The religion itself cannot take any credit.

 

[magnifier661]

I wouldn't say that Islam has contributed anything to science. Muslim armies have conquered areas that already had a scientific tradition, such as Persia, and allowed them to continue their work. It's not much more meaningful than saying Christianity brought us calculus because Issac Newton was a christian. Or that christianity put a man on the moon because most americans are christian. The religion itself cannot take any credit.

Then would you agree that Dawkins was out of line then? I mean if you can't generalize that a specific "belief" doesn't contribute to science; but the individual?

If that's the case, then atheists cannot contribute to science either. You can't have it one way.

 

[Sinobas]

Then would you agree that Dawkins was out of line then? I mean if you can't generalize that a specific "belief" doesn't contribute to science; but the individual?

If that's the case, then atheists cannot contribute to science either. You can't have it one way.

No, I think he was right on. Christianity and Islam have been murderous oppressors of scientific inquiry at worst, and tolerate at best, but what have they actually contributed? If anything, he may have been too generous by giving them credit for the the contributions of the Persian culture, an area the Muslims conquered.

The lack of believe in a God in and of itself doesn't contribute anything to science, but it does contribute to an atmosphere of seeking. If you don't believe you have all the answers, you're more likely to seek. You won't find any scientific knowledge or mathematical insights in the Koran.

 

[MARIS61]

Dawkins erred badly in that he singled out a religion rather than talking about religion in general. He'd be hard-pressed to show the contributions of one being much different from any other. Using a western yardstick, the Nobel Prize, as proof also seems a clumsy mistake for "the world's greatest thinker". Getting old?

 

[magnifier661]

No, I think he was right on. Christianity and Islam have been murderous oppressors of scientific inquiry at worst, and tolerate at best, but what have they actually contributed? If anything, he may have been too generous by giving them credit for the the contributions of the Persian culture, an area the Muslims conquered.

The lack of believe in a God in and of itself doesn't contribute anything to science, but it does contribute to an atmosphere of seeking. If you don't believe you have all the answers, you're more likely to seek. You won't find any scientific knowledge or mathematical insights in the Koran.

Lmao of course you would think that. But then I guess we can stereotype atheism for murdering more people than all religions combined. Look no further than the communist regime who was responsible for billions of deaths.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I think he was right on. Christianity and Islam have been murderous oppressors of scientific inquiry at worst, and tolerate at best, but what have they actually contributed? If anything, he may have been too generous by giving them credit for the the contributions of the Persian culture, an area the Muslims conquered.

The lack of believe in a God in and of itself doesn't contribute anything to science, but it does contribute to an atmosphere of seeking. If you don't believe you have all the answers, you're more likely to seek. You won't find any scientific knowledge or mathematical insights in the Koran.

Seems to me the church paid for Gregor Mendel's room and board and gave him all the resources he needed to discover genetics. At least they didn't burn him at the stake as a heretic.

 

[¹²³]

Lmao of course you would think that. But then I guess we can stereotype atheism for murdering more people than all religions combined. Look no further than the communist regime who was responsible for billions of deaths.

I would say millions not billions.

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.

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

 

[magnifier661]

I would say millions not billions.



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

I stand corrected. Still plenty to understand how atrocious it was.

 

[Further]

most people are good, regardless of religion or no religion. Some people, often those that rise to power are murderous psychopaths regardless of religion or no religion. I'm not sure if it bears out or not, but it sure "feels" like more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism, but I will also say it also "feels" as though more charity and aid work has been done in the religion than in the name of atheism. Much of this has to do with a long and robust history of religion being the dominant paradigm of mankind for the past several thousand years or more. So if most kingdoms, countries, nations, peoples are run by religion, it's only natural that the psychopaths that come to power are more likely to be religious than not.

That being said, I think that religion can be used to control a population and therefore is often the best tool of whomever is in power. There is a reason why Martin Luther was such a rebel and disrupter of his days, and it's because in translating the bible so that not just priests could read it took some of the innate power that religion had away from those in charge and gave some of it back to the people.

This is not to say that atheists can be controlling and evil, they have been in the past and will be in the future, but it's simply harder to rule this way than through the voice of god.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the question at hand, does religion reduce the likelihood of scientific achievement. The answer to this is I think most assuredly yes, and I think that most religious people would also admit this. However, they may make the argument that scientific breakthroughs are not nearly as important as I think they are. To me, the highest levels of science are at the pinnacle of mankind, but someone else may say it's prayer, or charity, or family, or a bunch of other things, all of which a well reasoned argument could be made.

 

[Sinobas]

Lmao of course you would think that. But then I guess we can stereotype atheism for murdering more people than all religions combined. Look no further than the communist regime who was responsible for billions of deaths.

Muslims believe in a book which teaches them to conquer and kill the infidel, athiests simply lack belief in any deity or holy book. So your reasoning is analogous to blaming someone's misdeeds on their lack of belief in Santa Clause. And given the long and bloody history of rulers, who have professed various faiths, what grounds do you even have to speculate that the communist regime would have behaved any better if they had believed in the Bible.