Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools

OK; so can one loathe religions and still describe scientific inquiry and its (always temporary and incomplete) findings to people on their own merits (evidence, logic, scientific method, comparison basis, history of human inquiry), rather than going to the papers and whining about the beliefs of people that our country is, purely coincidentally I am sure, at bloody war against?

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Number of deaths due to anti-Rushdie fatwa over the last eighteen years: 0

Number of deaths due to papal pronouncements against contraception and abortion: 215 000 maternal pregnancy-related deaths per year (according to Guttmacher Institute stats).

If we are going to take on religions, let's do so consistently.[/b]

---

Your stats are meaningless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
OK; so can one loathe religions and still describe scientific inquiry and its (always temporary and incomplete) findings to people on their own merits (evidence, logic, scientific method, comparison basis, history of human inquiry), rather than going to the papers and whining

---

I would imagine that it was the reporter who came to Dawkins, not the other way around.

quote:

---

about the beliefs of people that our country is, purely coincidentally I am sure, at bloody war against?

---

So, Dawkins should only be allowed to criticize certain religions? I thought earlier you were whining about criticizing religions equally? (edit: I guess consistently is the world you used. Either way you have proven that your view of consistently is completely one-sided and therefore the opposite of consistent.)

Dawkins, btw, unlike Hitchens and Sam Harris, was an ardent and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq (before and ever since) and wrote articles in the months leading up to war about the lies, deception, racism and bigotry that were allowing Blair and Bush (two leaders who Dawkins couldn't think less of) to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]OK; so can one loathe religions and still describe scientific inquiry and its (always temporary and incomplete) findings to people on their own merits (evidence, logic, scientific method, comparison basis, history of human inquiry), rather than going to the papers and whining about the beliefs of people that our country is, purely coincidentally I am sure, at bloody war against?[/b]

---

Our country (like the U.K.) is at war, and it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

When we were (illegally and immorally) at war with Serbia, were we supposed to stop critiquing the absurdities of Orthodox Christianity? Were we actually fighting for Islam, because Kosovo is mostly Muslim?

What nonsense.

In fact, look at Dawkins' denunciation of Tony Blair - a religious fanatic who loves all religions, so much so that he is "accommodating" "multicultural" "feelings" in British schools.

Blair is the kind of bastard who welcomes Islam into British schools, but murders Muslims in their home countries.

I'm the kind of bastard who condemns the butchery of these modern-day imperialist crusaders (as you know very well, martin, just as you do), while never forgetting to mention that religion is a pile of crap and we don't want it in our schools.

Please don't confuse the two. If some people out there are indeed confused, then the proper recourse is to clarify - not to give religion of any flavour a pass in our institutions.

I think Dawkins should tread more carefully then he does when discussing Islam but I don't think he should stop critiquing religious groups that seek to bring religious nuttiness into schools.

I think Islamic leaders should also look at who they make common cause with. The Chritsian fundamentalists who agree with them on funding religious schools aren't teaching lessons about how terrible the Iraq war is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Militant Islam or Soviet communism? The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone"[/b]

---

Exactly, entirely, correct - thanks Fidel. Imperialism is imperialism. It is not some religious ideology. If imperialism finds it in its interest on Tuesday to fund and create wild-eyed religious cults and armed groups - and to blame them for all the ills in the world and slaughter them on Wednesday - it has done, does, and will continue to do so.

Bush and Blair and Harper don't hate Muslims (or Jews or Catholics). They don't love them either. They will kiss or kill them according to their needs of the moment.

(In response to Fidel and Unionist dismissing a link between imperialism and Islam-bashing) Well, I have to disagree. Islam is not only a religion: it is a worldwide rallying pole against the Empire and is very much taken into account in the strategy of imperialists. Islamists may have been useful to fund when the West was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan or when it is fighting China in Sudan but take notice: when a Muslim party manages to democratically win an election, the West or its puppet parties in countries like Egypt and Algeria annul the election, jail the party leaders and bans their party from participating in any further elections.
Unionist writes: "If some people out there are indeed confused, then the proper recourse is to clarify - not to give religion of any flavour a pass in our institutions", I would answer yes to clarify but no to taking the currrent war into schools as a backhanded way of fighting Muslims on the home front.
Otherwise, we push religion out of view and allow it to fester in denial of its actual relevance and weight in the world, robbing ourselves of a spacer where its pronouncements can be challenged and countered with facts and discussion among people of varying convictions.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

When are you going to run out of straw, Martin?

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Unionist writes: "If some people out there are indeed confused, then the proper recourse is to clarify - not to give religion of any flavour a pass in our institutions", I would answer yes to clarify but no to taking the currrent war into schools as a backhanded way of fighting Muslims on the home front.

---

Ironic, as Unionist already pointed out to you that it was the likes of Blair who have supported publicly funded, but independent of normal standards, Islamic (and other religious) schools, while supporting the killing of muslims in foreign lands. While it was the likes of Dawkins who opposes teaching bad/pseudo/non science to children simply because of their parents beliefs, while strongly and publicly opposing the killing of muslims anywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b](In response to Fidel and Unionist dismissing a link between imperialism and Islam-bashing) [/b]

---

Sorry I couldn't read past your opening line in this post.

It is precisely imperialism that bashes Muslims when its needs dictate. I thought I made that point rather clearly a few posts ago. Your inability to read it or recall it really concerns me. Maybe the "straw" allegation has something to it after all.

Can't you save all these winning arguments for use against some real live Islamophobes? You hunt for them here in vain.

Did you just call unionist a "Lily-white Enabler" of imperialism?

Oh, it's Richard Dawkins who is the Lily-white Enabler!

And thus you demonstrate that you understand nothing.

Heh, exactly, everyone wins except the poor suckers like us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Yes, and imperialism that arms them when it needs dictate. I understand that.

But when Fidel argues that "The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone" and you agree saying that "imperialism is imperialism", I feel the connection is lost between one specific religion, Islam, and its real agency in this here and now world, active resistance to the Empire, something imperialists do think and fret about a great deal. [/b]

---

Many Taliban, or students of militant Islam, did not fully appreciate who their enablers were in the late 1970's-1980's. Certain mujahideen leaders and OBL did know who was funding the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the radicalization of Islam in Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. The CIA, British, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc, deliberately bypassed support of more moderate Islamic leaders in Central Asia and Balkans in favour of extremists supporting a theocratic feudalist form of Islam. Many secular and moderately religious Pakistanis are said to blame Afghans for Talibanization of the two countries. But it isn't true.

eta: I don't believe unionist or myself are against Afghans joining the Taliban today. They do it because the Taliban represents resistance to the vicious empire. They are somewhat organized and have steady funding. Many Afghans don't believe in Taliban religious ideals. This is comparable, I believe, to when PDPA government officials and their supporters joined the "Northern Alliance" in order to oppose the U.S.-backed warlords, and then opposed the Taliban after 1992 to 1995. Some prominent mujahideen commanders declared war on the Taliban around 1992-93. And they lost their CIA funding because of it.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I apologize for this mistake. I still feel that the distinction between dissing ideas and dissing the people that identify with them is tenuous. Indeed it failed me too since - you are right - your words did not illustrate the problem I tried to describe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b][url=http://www.harunyahya.com/]Everything you ever wanted to know about Muslim creationism but were afraid to ask...[/url]

Essentially, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same roots and beliefs regarding creation (if taken literally) from the book of Genesis.[/b]

---

Thanks Tb, but that site's a little too weird to get into. I kinda though Mohammed basically just copied the Christian creation story, but I'm not sure how much the Koran actually discusses creation. I believe Adam and Eve are mentioned.

I'll be in your 'hood on Thursday evening, by the way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]
Yeah, it all stems from a dirty old man who almost sacrificed a son because the voices told him to while on a mission for Dawkin's selfish gene. It's too perfect, really.[/b]

---

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

In fact, his son's name - Isaac ([i]Yitzhak[/i] in the Bible) - means "he laughs". Even the kid had a hard time taking the old man seriously after that lame performance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Oh, it's Richard Dawkins who is the Lily-white Enabler! [/b]

---

You glommed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b]

This is no different than non-fundamentalist Christianity's views on creationism. The new testament does not offer any opinion how or when the world was created -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all working from roughly the same text and literal fundamentalists of all three faiths go with the 6 day theory, while more moderate views within all three faiths make attempts to reconcile the 6 days as metaphorical rather than literal.[/b]

---

Certainly if people are willing to water down their religions then their beliefs can be more easily reconciled with reality. There will also be cases where some religions happen to get something more right than others due to sheer chance.

And both these truisms miss the point entirely.

The point is that religion is an irrational framework to understand the world, regardless of whether or not it gets some components less wrong than others. This is as true of catholicism, mormonism, islam, jainism and scientology. We should be moving to a system where all fairy tales are kept out of the classroom.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] But so is reason. There is no rational meta-argument for reason. It merely corresponds to our current guesstimate of the best way to the 'truth' (whatever that is) but constitutes, from the outset, a leap of faith. In fact, in our culture, 'reason' and truth' define each other in a circular process.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]

---

Yes, all that stuff about pesticides causing cancer, global warming, gravity, jet propulsion, etc, etc, is all a guesstimate. It cannot be true! You may as well tell me that God and Allah are tricking us into believing all of it. What if they decide to change the laws of gravity?

[b]Belief[/b] in reason cannot be rational itself, since it is one level removed from reason, a meta-argument.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Au contraire, mon cher. Discussion is particularly important since we cannot absolutely entrust the guidance of human affairs to mere rationality.
Be true to your signature line!

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b][b]Belief[/b] in reason cannot be rational itself, since it is one level removed from reason, a meta-argument.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]

---

I don't believe in reason blindly, I know it to be possible and therefore true.

[url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reason]reason:[/url]

quote:

---

4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

---

I have seen this capacity, so I know it to be true.

Fossils, carbon-dating and astrophysical research all contribute to rational and logical theories on evolution and the beginnings of the universe. These are rational because there is tangible evidence given and they are called theories because they are not 100% proven. A few centuries-old religious books tell a different story and don't even have the good sense to call them theories. They offer circular reasoning as proof (it is in this book, therefore God said it and it is true).

Reason is not a belief, but a system of thought where conclusions and theories have to be based on objective evidence.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

RosaL asks: "I'd be interested in knowing how you explain or justify your strong beliefs, however. Do you just intuit the truth? Or, at least, the good?" My strong beliefs are based on desire for justice. I don't need to appeal for reason to justify it. As for guidance, I look at what the oppressed are saying, and I examine arguments for rationality, yes, but also for other criteria: correspondence to experience (theirs and mine), intuition, yes, commonality of analysis with other progressive-minded folks, lessons of history if any...
Sorry if this disappoints the Mr. Spocks among us, but rationality shows severe limits when it is touted as the royal way to the truth. It is one way among many to knowledge - the best we have in some areas, piss-poor in many others,and always requiring somwhat of a leap of faith from theories that can merely be held as valid until they are improved or proven wrong (or not falsifiable in some area).

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]