Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools

131 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2008-08-11 09:12

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]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.[/b]

I hate to break it to you martin, but many people believe in justice, but it is religious justice. The logical assertion that every human being has an inherent right to dignity, freedom and equality is disproven by the mere belief in religious justice. Some of these people are even oppressed. Muslims are an oppressed groups, but some Muslims would argue that an honour killing is just. Indians in British India were oppressed, but burnt widows alive.

It is through rational and reasoned morality that we can argue against some of these poisonous beliefs.

Mon, 2008-08-11 09:14

#103

Ghislaine

quote:

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]
People who are comfortable can do without "reason". The oppressed cannot.[/b]

That is an excellent quote.

Mon, 2008-08-11 09:25

#104

oldgoat

...and a fine one upon which to end this lengthy thread.

Mon, 2008-08-11 15:28

#105

al-Qa'bong

quote:

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

And which gave us such examples of rationality in action as the atom bomb and Auschwitz.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

Mon, 2008-08-11 16:37

#106

martin dufresne

Ghislaine, I agree that there are differing standards of justice and one may try to argue for one over another in a rational manner. But I disagree that the honourable statement "every human being has an inherent right to dignity, freedom and equality" is a logical assertion. It is political and ethical, and I don't think that politics, morality or ethics are deducible from logic or reason alone.
I also disagree that religious justice is necessarily worse than the application of rationality in a world where dominants control it. Some religious folks - e.g. some priests in Latin America - do tremendous good in the world.
I am not sure about "rational and reasoned morality"; it seems to me like a thought-experiment, a mental construct to justify ours against theirs.
I am not a religious person, but I object to attempts to accredit reason as some overarching system of justice, value or truth that would justify attacking - as we are - people whose religion isn't the dominant Western one - as I feel The Telegraph and Dawkins did in the original quote about "Muslim parents".

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

Mon, 2008-08-11 17:01

#107

Cueball

Dawkins is pathetic. The fact that he is doing service as a stand in thinker for the some of traditions founded by rationalists such as Marx and Engels, only indicates how far some of the adherents have strayed from that mode of analysis. Engaging in hysterical apoplectic and offensive tirades against religiously minded people, when cogent and sympathetic (dare I say "rational") argument has proven effective in the past, is an embarrassment.

The idea that "rationality" is some kind of newly-born methodology of thinking that arrives with the European enlightenment, is just more Eurocentric arrogance, for the most part. Religion is born of the same desire to learn and to understand, and explain as the desire that put human beings into space. Trying to disown religion as the ancestor of modern science, and the clear relationship that exists between the two is just the bad manners of ignorant and ungrateful children.

quote:

Or let us take another example: The philosophy of antiquity was primitive, spontaneously evolved materialism. As such, it was incapable of clearing up the relation between mind and matter. But the need to get clarity on this question led to the doctrine of a soul separable from the body, then to the assertion of the immortality of this soul, and finally to monotheism. The old materialism was therefore negated by idealism. But in the course of the further development of philosophy, idealism, too, became untenable and was negated by modern materialism. This modern materialism, the negation of the negation, is not the mere re-establishment of the old, but adds to the permanent foundations of this old materialism the whole thought-content of two thousand years of development of philosophy and natural science, as well as of the history of these two thousand years. It is no longer a philosophy at all, but simply a world outlook which has to establish its validity and be applied not in a science of sciences standing apart, but in the real sciences. Philosophy is therefore "sublated" here, that is, "both overcome and preserved" {D. K. G. 503}; overcome as regards its form, and preserved as regards its real content. Thus, where Herr Dьhring sees only "verbal jugglery", closer inspection reveals an actual content.

[url=http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm]...ьhring by Frederick Engels 1877[/url]

But yeah, go Don Quixote go! Get that windmill!

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:01

#108

Trevormkidd

Well I have now watched the first two episodes of Dawkins three part series on Darwin of which the interview that started this thread was supposed to be based.

In the second episode the evil Dawkins didn't bash religion once, in neither episode did the evil eurocentric Dawkins mention Islam or Muslims. Furthermore the evil Dawkins attacked capitalism and social darwinism and mostly talked about the evolution of altruism (the main topic of his 70s bestseller "The Selfish Gene" which many attack having never read more than the title). He interviewed Richard Leakey, Steven Pinker and De Waal among others.

If only Dawkins would support the teaching of fairy tales as fact in publicly funded schools and if only he would accept that some children should be forced to grow up completely ignorant - despite attending publicly funded schools where you would think that the governemnt would have an obligation to those students - of scientific evidence because of the religious views their parents force on them then I think that the left might not think he was completely evil.

And before people go on about Dawkins singling out Muslims - while demanding he treat all religions "consistently" maybe they should actually read and watch his work. Unlike Hitchen's "god is not Great" and Harris' book which I can't think of name of right now (edit: The End of Faith), "The God Delusion" talked significantly less about Islam than Christianity or Judiasm. His series "The Root of all evil" dealt with Christianity for the most part, and Islam the least. Indeed one of the criticisms of Dawkins over the years has been that he picks on Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser extent) while ignoring Islam. Unfortunately, lately it is his words about Islam that make the newspapers which is either because of the prejudice of the newspapers themselves or due to fact that his frequent remarks about and criticism of Christianity have been repeated and published for years ad nauseum. As the telegraph said Dawkins had been correctly and justifiably criticizing the Christian right and Christian creationism for decades and finally he said something about Islamic creationism. As we here on rabble are so concerned about the consistent treatment of religions I am sure that we can easily find in the archives threads about Dawkins criticizing Christian creationism and the outrage from babblers about such.

(edit: if you check out his other work you will find criticism of fundamentalism - again almost exclusively christian. From "The Selfish Gene" - Cathlocism - to "The Blind Watchmaker" to "A Devil's Chaplain" to his piles of essays)

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:11

#109

Cueball

What fairy tales? Fairy tales such as that the Qu'ran has no historical facts in it?

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:18

#110

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
What fairy tales? Fairy tales such as that the Qu'ran has no historical facts in it?

There is nothing - absolutely not a single thing - in the Qu'ran or the Bible that belongs in a science classroom. And that is what is being done. Preaching a religion as truth does not belong in schools. That is what this about. You can force all the ignorance you want on children elsewhere Cueball and I, and Dawkins, won't give a shit.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:31

#111

Cueball

Then you are an idiot. Because in fact, it is quite obvious that in among the long and often boring lyrical passages there are quite concrete historical facts, that are verifiable by corroborating them with sources outside of the text itself. It is called "archaeology" and it is what you would call a "science", and both texts have been valuable as sources for assertaining concrete historical "facts" that are not disputed by any serious scholar.

The only person here who is propogating any falsehoods here is you, by your insistence that these texts have no value as a historical documents. That is the only "fairy tale" that is being espoused here.

I am sad that I have to break this news to you to you, the self described champion of "rationalist" science. But I guess that says a lot about the state of "science" today.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:32

#112

Catchfire

Don't you think, trev, that the ratio of people 'teaching the Qu'ran in the classroom' (as far as I can tell, virtually nil) to hostile writers like Dawkins and Hitchens is rather unbalanced?

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:47

#113

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]Then you are an idiot. Because in fact, it is quite obvious that in among the long and often boring lyrical passages there are quite concrete historical facts, that are verifiable by corroborating them with sources outside of the text itself.

First of all Cueball, you know damn well that this thread and Dawkins criticism of Islam and Islamic creationism (along with Christianity and Judaism) deals with the teaching of creationism in the science classroom. Christians and Muslims are not concerned about the teaching of seige of Mecca or whatever, they are concerned with removing evolution and inserting creationism. This would not be an issue if this was about the teaching of some "accurately" recorded archeological event in the Koran that no one gives a shit about except you. So there you go, Cueball, and as I have already stated elsewhere to you, "I couldn't give a flying fuck" about whether or not they teach about that. Furthermore Dawkins wasn't criticising Muslim parents for bringing archeological evidence of blah, blah, blah into the classroom. We have hopefully settled the total non-issue. Now, how about the real issue? Creationism. The interference of the teaching of the major pillor of biology in biology class. The pillor necessary to understand the entire field of biology.

Tue, 2008-08-12 00:51

#114

Cueball

I don't really give a shit about "creationism" but as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler. Now that is some track record you guys got, I must say!

"Enlightenment" my ass!

Personally, the only thing you seem to object to is my correcting you on your false representations, and your reptetition of the idea that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairty tale. One would think that a "serious" defender of science would be precise enough to avoid such ridiculous and stupid distortions.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:03

#115

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Don't you think, trev, that the ratio of people 'teaching the Qu'ran in the classroom' (as far as I can tell, virtually nil) to hostile writers like Dawkins and Hitchens is rather unbalanced?

Dawkins should never be compared to Hitchens. Hitchens was a strong proponent of the war in Iraq, Dawkins was a strong opponent. Hitchens blamed 9/11 on Muslims and Islam, Dawkins said that Islam could not be blamed for 9/11 just as Christianity could not be blamed for terrorism in Ireland. Dawkins wrote pieces just after 9/11 in which he criticized religious fanatacism in general without writing anything that could be linked to a specific religion, such as Islam. The same obviously can't be said for Hitchens who used words like Islamofascism and concentrated on muslims.

Would I say that Hitchens is unbalanced against Islam and Muslims? Yes. Would I say the same for Dawkins? No. Dawkins has always, and continues to, concentrate on criticism of Christian creationism as that is the majority issue in the UK, but he owes the same respect of allowing UK children to be exposed to the scientific evidence if they are Muslim. That is actually his job and responsibility as the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. That is to promote public understanding of science to all - not just the children of agnositics, atheists, christians and jews.

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:04

#116

Cueball

Oh really? That is why he singles out Muslims specifically in this case:

quote:

"Most devout [b]Muslims[/b] are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of [b]Islamic [/b] parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

He then goes on to attack "multiculturalism" just like any jack booted skinhead: "it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the [b]different traditions[/b] from which these children come."

I can get such jingoistic sermons about multiculturalism from the folks at the Heritage Front. Thanks but no thanks. But you are right that I would expect nothing else from the primary think-tank that has been the source of the ideological justification of British Imperialism for the last 400 years: Oxford.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:20

#117

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't really give a shit about "creationism" but as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler. Now that is some track record you guys got, I must say!

You are truly one ignorant human being. Beyond hope. No wonder you dislike Dawkins so.

(Hitler by the way never once mentions Darwin, had no understanding of evolution, and while he did view certain "races" as being inferior, such beliefs existed long before Darwin, Hitlers beliefs - well documented in Mein Kamf - were that the inferior races were inferior not due to evolution, but due to being created that way. Hitler was a creationist who believed in evolution within races, but not evolution from one species or race to another. Hitler would quite approve of your scientific ignorance. Darwin on the other hand abhored slavery - well documented and rare for his time, and considering his volumnious writing I can't recall anything I have ever read by him which stated that Europeans were superior to others.)

quote:

Personally, the only thing you seem to object to is my correcting you on your false representations, and your reptetition of the idea that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairty tale. One would think that a "serious" defender of science would be precise enough to avoid such ridiculous and stupid distortions.

I have never said that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairy tale. That is a figment of your imagination. However, the basis of the holy books is supernatural and without any evidence.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:23

#118

Cueball

You are saying that there is no evidence for the existance of the historical Mohammed?

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:31

#119

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
You are saying that there is no evidence for the existance of the historical Mohammed?

I am? Good to know. What else am I saying that I have never said before?

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:39

#120

Cueball

You said that Darwin was not a racist who believed in the superiority of Europeans:

quote:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. [b]At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, [i]the savage races throughout the world.[/i][/b] At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. [b]The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[/b]

From the Decent of Man by Charles Darwin.

But do go on...

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:44

#121

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh really? That is why he singles out Muslims specifically in this case

Again, if you read Dawkins work you would know that he has always concentrated on christian creationism. So your evidence is a single time, among hundreds, that he may have singled Muslims (or that may be only what was reported).

quote:

He then goes on to attack "multiculturalism" just like any jack booted skinhead: "it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the [b]different traditions[/b] from which these children come."

Multiculturalism is about coexisting and interrelating. It is not about a teacher deciding that they can't teach scientific evidence because it might offend someone's religion. Dawkins doesn't oppose mutliculturalism. He opposes the fanatical multiculturalism in which people believe that it is not allowed to criticize or offend other cultures and thereby you wind up with things like Tony Blair's faith schools and creationism in the classrooms which under the defence of promoting multi-culturalism is dividing people up into groups along religious and cultural lines instead of promoting diversity.

quote:

I can get such jingoistic sermons about multiculturalism from the folks at the Heritage Front. Thanks but no thanks. But you are right that I would expect nothing else from the primary think-tank that has been the source of the ideological justification of British Imperialism for the last 400 years: Oxford.

Associating Dawkins with imperialism. Brilliant.

Tue, 2008-08-12 01:49

#122

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]
Multiculturalism is about coexisting and interrelating. It is not about a teacher deciding that they can't teach scientific evidence because it might offend someone's religion. Dawkins doesn't oppose mutliculturalism. He opposes the fanatical multiculturalism in which people believe that it is not allowed to criticize or offend other cultures and thereby you wind up with things like Tony Blair's faith schools and creationism in the classrooms which under the defence of promoting multi-culturalism is dividing people up into groups along religious and cultural lines instead of promoting diversity. [/b]

If that is the case, then why does Dawkins single out mulitculturalism as the culprit despoiling science. If his target were elsewhere, why would he mention it as his appendix to his sermon on Muslims?

I should think a careful "scientist" would show more acumen.

Catchfire's point is right on. Where are these teachers being forced to teach creationism? There are none. No. What he is talking about is students being brought up to believe things at variance with what he believes, and being present in schools, not teachers being bullied into teaching false science.

Read this carefully... it is the students and their parents that are the problem:

quote:

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

He is just another racist, Eurocentric Oxford educated white supremacist. That is all.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:04

#123

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
You said that Darwin was not a racist who believed in the superiority of Europeans

I said:

quote:

Darwin on the other hand abhored slavery - well documented and rare for his time, and considering his volumnious writing I can't recall anything I have ever read by him which stated that Europeans were superior to others.

I've read thousands of pages written by him, concerning myself with the discovery and his development of understanding of evolution as written by possibly the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. I guess I missed the odd paragraph - and all said was I could not recall - which you googled from some creationist site. Good for you. Regardless, racism didn't permeate his work, or define his work as there exists a couple paragraphs over tens of thousands of pages of published work.

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:08

#124

Cueball

Lots of racists abhored slavery. There was no "slavery" in Apartheid South Africa.

By the way I did not google that from a creationist web site, but the site which corrected misquotes from Darwin. There is the whole qoute unadulterated. Even without edits, Darwin clearly believes in Caucasian superiority over the "savages" such as the Australian aboriginals.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:11

#125

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
Catchfire's point is right on. Where are these teachers being forced to teach creationism? There are none.

As I have pointed out already in this thread there are several dozen publicly funded schools teaching creationism in the science classrooms in the UK. Mostly, but not exclusively, relgious schools funded due to Tony Blair.

quote:

No. What he is talking about is students being brought up to believe things at variance with what he believes, and being present in schools, not teachers being bullied into teaching false science.

You are incorrect.

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:14

#126

Cueball

Why am I incorrect? I am right on the money. You are saying he is talking about teachers. He barely mentions teachers. Read the quote carefully. He is not talking about teachers at all. He is talking about the students and their parents trotting out "what they have been taught."

quote:

Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

Teachers are secondary to the issue. The problem is Muslim students at schools.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:20

#127

Cueball

And aside from all the crapola you are spouting about Dawkins even-handedness, there it is: His complaint is about Muslims, and teachers being afraid of being called Islamophobic. Nothing at all about other kinds of creationism, Christian or otherwise, as you make it out.

And then harping on about the evils of mulitculturalism. Truly disgusting, really.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:25

#128

Trevormkidd

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why am I incorrect? I am right on the money. You are saying he is talking about teachers. He never mentions teachers. Read the quote carefully. He is not talking about teachers at all. He is talking about the students and their parents trotting out "what they have been taught."
Teachers are secondary to the issue. The problem is Muslim students at schools.

No the article is talking about failure in the classroom and teachers and government bowing to pressure from religious fundamentalists. It was no different when I went to school. Christian creationists caused such a uproar that the teacher gave up and we were taught nothing. But at least that was better than what is going on in many schools in the UK where they are teaching creationist lies which have no scientific support.

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:28

#129

Cueball

In regards to Muslims, possibly. But where is the quote:

quote:

Most devout [b]Monotheists[/b] are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of [b]religious[/b] parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

It is not there. It is about the problem of Muslims. Muslims are the problem not "religious fundamentalists". You put that phrase in there. Dawkins is talking about Muslims, and Islam.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:31

#130

Cueball

Amyway. You can defend pompous Oxford educated racist pseudo-scientists all you like. I am going to bed.

Tue, 2008-08-12 02:34

#131

Michelle

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked