Dawkins, Islam in schools, Part II
Tue, 2008-08-12 06:21
#1
Dawkins, Islam in schools, Part II
Tue, 2008-08-12 06:21
#2
I have read the last part of the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001961]D... Thread[/url] here, specifically the 30 or so posts that were written after I last looked and before the thread was closed. Many points were raised and some I think were interesting and necessitating a response.
[b]martin dufresne: [/b]
quote:
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".
Emotions are a very real part of the world are they not? I've not seen very many people who want to derive morality purely from reason. What you chose to optimize has to come from outside reason, be it human happiness, contentment, equality or economic growth. But how you proceed once you've selected your end goal should, on the other hand, be derivable from reason.
[b]Cueball:[/b]
quote:
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.
There are fundamental differences between starting with questions, as science does, and starting with answers, as religion does.
I went to a Jewish day school, and I remember when we started Talmud, they taught us the Talmud was written down when people's memory began to worsen. What the Rabbi said, is that people were becoming less intelligent and less wise about the time the second temple was destroyed. What that meant is that a generation could never surpass a previous generation, only match them by eventually understanding (memorizing) the arguments they wrote down.
That is a mode of epistemology that is completely and utterly different from the way science is done and taught.
[b]Catchfire:[/b]
quote:
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?
If there is a single person teaching "creationist science" in any classroom, then the ratio is badly skewed away from science. Teaching creationism and other such nonesense is child abuse, and I think that's the key point a lot of people are failing to grasp.
I was reading an American Scientist article on a PhD candidate in education who tested how his high school students would respond to evidence for creationism. Does that sentence ring an alarm bell? He taught his students "evidence" for creationism... that's right, to see how they would respond. Somehow this only got criticized at his PhD defense and he was denied his degree for committing fraud.
That is how serious an issue this is.
[b]Cueball:[/b]
quote:
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!
This may have been the post I found the most offense with.
First of all knowledge is an end in itself. There's a value to learning truth, be it truth about electromagnetism, about gravity or about history, if you don't believe otherwise then live as an animal. Secondly, science has brought a lot more to the world than just eugenics, which was around before science. Stem cell therapy is already beginning to help some people, a lot of previously infertile people can now give birth, a lot of humans feel much more solidarity with the animal kingdom and mother nature in general, something unthinkable two hundred years ago.
Religion could not have eradicated smallpox in a million years. Biology did so in a few centuries.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 06:32
#3
Catchfire
quote:
If there is a single person teaching "creationist science" in any classroom, then the ratio is badly skewed away from science. Teaching creationism and other such nonesense is child abuse, and I think that's the key point a lot of people are failing to grasp.
My point was not that if only a few schools are teaching creationism we should let it slide. I have no objection to polemical and emphatic censure of schools who do so. I am only concerned with why Dawkins chose to highlight 'Islam' and the 'Qu'ran' as insidious sources that surreptitiously insert creationism into classrooms. It doesn't happen. It's a red herring, and it is, in my view, Islamophobic.
Tue, 2008-08-12 06:48
#4
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]This may have been the post I found the most offense with.[/b]
It was also the most ignorant post of the entire two threads, so far.
Anybody who would deny that Darwinism is one of the most important and useful scientific principles ever elaborated by humankind knows nothing about science.
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:04
#5
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Anybody who would deny that Darwinism is one of the most important and useful scientific principles ever elaborated by humankind knows nothing about science.[/b]
And I'm going to call bullshit because your terminology sucks and it concerns me to see you buying in to the wingnuts' framing which is what you do when you refer to Darwinism. Calling it Darwinism suggests that biology is actually some kind of cult in which the writings of Darwin are revered as the gospel and the science has been static for a century and a half. And that's exactly the idea that the intelligent design crowd wants to promote.
Charles Darwin put forth theories that turned out to be absolute nonsense and have long since been abandoned which is exactly how science is supposed to work. But his theory regarding the role of natural selection in the evolution of species is one that has stood up to 150 years of subsequent investigation and experimentation and [i]that's[/i] probably what you're referring to. Don't call it Darwinism. This is even more important than spelling guitar players' names correctly.
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:07
#6
quote:
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.
When did you turn into a complete idiot?
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:13
#7
M. Spector
When I referred to Darwinism I was quite obviously referring to what cueball called "Darwinian science". Your pedantry is getting in the way of your logic.
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:17
#8
Timebandit
quote:
It was also the most ignorant post of the entire two threads, so far.
Add my vote to that assessment as well -- beyond ignorant, it's blatantly propagandist.
M. Spector, not to set up a quibble, but I read an article about the term "Darwinism" a few weeks ago that looked at it from an interesting angle. [url=http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lets-get-rid-of-darwinism/]Here it is.[/url]
quote:
In short, Darwin did more in one lifetime than most of us could hope to accomplish in two. But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It’s a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. “Why Darwin was wrong about X”; “Was Darwin wrong about Y?”; “What Darwin didn’t know about Z” — these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.
Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”
It's evolutionary theory in general fundies (of both Islamic and Christian varieties) have a problem with. (ETA: I see pogge beat me to it.)
Has anyone seen the trailers for Dawkins' new documentary? I suspect this is an important context for his statements revolving around Islam in this case rather than Christianity.
In the clip that I watched on the Channel 4 website, he is talking to a group of students in a classroom. It happens that the boy who speaks up and says that his religion tells him evolution is wrong happens to be Muslim. [url=http://www.channel4.com/video/the-genius-of-charles-darwin/series-1/]Here is a link.[/url] Click on "The unteachables."
Personally, I don't think it matters whether the kid in question is Muslim, Christian or any other religion. The fact is that the child was taught to reject fact in favour of blind faith before he ever set foot in the classroom. Is hampering his ability to learn good parenting? I have to concur with Dawkins on this one.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:19
#9
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by unionistLet me put it more clearly. I don't want my kids' teachers to know or care what any kid's religious beliefs are - let alone to tailor education accordingly.
I think this sums my opinion.
The state should not sponsor, advocate or promote any religion. Public schools should remain secular.
The teacher, the administration, the school board, and the government has no business identifying which students are atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, pagan etc.
At the same time, no special interest group should be imposing their perspectives on secular school boards, precisely because the schools should never be in the business of advocating or denouncing any faith based belief system.
The state has a responsibility not to interfere in peoples' beliefs, traditions, faith, etc in so much as there is no conflict with the rights of children and their personal safety.
We still have a long way to go, no doubt about it. A state funded school can be secular, and still have people of faith on it's staff, on the parent council and in the student body.
If there is a group of citizens that want a chartered faith based school, then that community can be accomadated as per Seperate School Acts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are precedents (all across Canada, for example, there are Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant schools) .
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:32
#10
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]When I referred to Darwinism I was quite obviously referring to what cueball called "Darwinian science". Your pedantry is getting in the way of your logic.[/b]
You know what, I think pogge has a point here which is beyond pedantic, although I believe you're both in agreement with each other on the fundamentals (as am I).
Beyond the word "Darwinism", I have long been uncomfortable with terms like "theory of evolution". We no longer refer in common parlance to the "Copernican theory" of planetary revolution around the sun, nor to the "Keplerian theory" of elliptical orbits, nor to the "antiobiotic theory" of combatting bacterial infection and illness, etc. We do still say "theory" for special and general relativity, but those are more terms of art.
Darwin's explanation of evolution has long been accepted - by everyone except religious fanatics - as reality. It's time to drop the "theory", because ordinary mortals understand "theory" as one unsubstantiated competing view among many, rather than in its scholarly sense.
As for Cueball crediting Darwin with social Darwinism and Hitler, he just gets upset whenever he thinks Islam is under attack and he overreacts. He doesn't really mean it. Although he'll murder me for this paragraph...
Tue, 2008-08-12 07:56
#11
Timebandit
quote:
If there is a group of citizens that want a chartered faith based school, then that community can be accomadated as per Seperate School Acts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are precedents (all across Canada, for example, there are Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant schools) .
I know there are precedents, but I still have a problem with public funding of faith-based schools. Seriously, run classes from your church, synagogue or mosque after school or on the weekend. I don't think the public purse should be funding superstition of any kind.
Tue, 2008-08-12 08:11
#12
From the previous thread...
quote:
In regards to Muslims, possibly. But where is the quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most devout Monotheists are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of religious 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.
Yes, you are right Cueball, they should have at least added to the article "for anyone who is awakening from a 40 year coma - yes Dawkins still says and believes the same things about Christians, Christian parents and Christian creationism."
Let's get serious. This is an article in an UK newspaper being written for a UK audience. Most people in the UK have heard Dawkins criticize Christianity more often than they have heard "God Save the Queen." It is a given, he doesn't have to end each sentence with it. Would you prefer the media to ask Dawkins every hour if still opposes and criticizes christian fundamentalism and creationism? Maybe he could have some kind of yes or no button that he presses every hour or day.
Plus how do you know that Dawkins didn't criticize Christianity in the interview? In fact he did. The telegrah "interview" has a couple quotes, more is found in the Times and that additional information is centered at Christianity and religion in general. Even what is available in the Times is most certainly only a small part of what Dawkins actually said in the interview.
It is easy to claim that Dawkins is picking on and singling out Islam and Muslims when you ignore 98% of what he has said on religion.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:01
#13
quote:
Cueball: 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.
By the same ridiculous logic I can accuse most people on babble (including myself as a former member of the NDP) as supporters of eugenics because Tommy Douglas supported it at one time, writing a thesis on “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” At least Dawkins only judges people based on their current beliefs, you are judging someone based on the beliefs of those he is not associated with.
You have also accused Darwin of being responsible for Eugenics, Social Darwinisn and Hitler. Hitler as I have already pointed out supported a theory which was similar to creationism and in opposition to Darwin’s theory. Eugenics and Social Darwinism drew their ideas from many people, but no one ever claims that Thomas Multhus is responsible for either although he easily was far more influential in regards to both and in fact much of his work was specifically about the overbreeding of undesirables, whereas in the case of Darwin it is necessary to comb over thousands of pages of original work to find some quotes. Darwin didn't found eugenics or social darwinism. He wasn't involved in either (something that can't be said about many prominent progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century).
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:13
#14
Timebandit
One also needs to look at Darwin's personal beliefs and biases in their historical context. Many great thinkers held views common in their historical context that we would find repugnant if expressed today.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:22
#15
What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:30
#16
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of stretgeic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: irrational attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against them, selectively-featured human rights abuses, etc.
As for our rationality conceit, Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the opillage of the world by European colonizers and, more recntly, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Guantanamo, so lease give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.[/b]
I think what's racist is saying that supporting rationality is a western supremacist belief - that implies rationality was born in Europe.
There was a lot of excellent mathematics and astronomy taking place in Egypt, among the Mayans, in Mesopotamia and in ancient India. In fact the oldest known case of someone figuring out the heliocentric model of the solar system, with a spherical Earth, was in India, not the West.
The only thing "western" about science and rationality is that at this current stage in history, for a few hundred years, most of the most advanced science has been done in western countries. However, that is specific to this period in history, which is no way more special than any other period, past, or future for that matter.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:31
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]By the same ridiculous logic I can accuse most people on babble (including myself as a former member of the NDP) as supporters of eugenics because Tommy Douglas supported it at one time, writing a thesis on “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” At least Dawkins only judges people based on their current beliefs, you are judging someone based on the beliefs of those he is not associated with.
You have also accused Darwin of being responsible for Eugenics, Social Darwinisn and Hitler. Hitler as I have already pointed out supported a theory which was similar to creationism and in opposition to Darwin’s theory. Eugenics and Social Darwinism drew their ideas from many people, but no one ever claims that Thomas Multhus is responsible for either although he easily was far more influential in regards to both and in fact much of his work was specifically about the overbreeding of undesirables, whereas in the case of Darwin it is necessary to comb over thousands of pages of original work to find some quotes. Darwin didn't found eugenics or social darwinism. He wasn't involved in either (something that can't be said about many prominent progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century).
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ][/b]
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was also a huge proponent of eugenics.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:37
#18
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
It has already been pointed out that Tony Blair supports both war on Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran (?) [b]and[/b] has not acted while religious creationism has been increasingly taught in British schools on his watch due to him not wanting to offend religious groups.
Dawkins on the other hand, opposes any and all creationist theories being taught in schools (or even considered valid) and opposed the Iraq war.
Martin, you mention pollution of the first world. What gives us the tools to discover pollution, determine how it causes illnesses and form standards that are acceptable in terms of health? Science and rationality. You cannot blame rationality and science for the decisions of the fascists and dictators of the world. You also cannot blame science if our governments are bought out and lobbied by corporations into allowing our environment to be polluted. Principled scientists use science and reason to speak out and convince us that we need to base public policy on reason.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:39
#19
M. Spector
Darwinism is a term commonly used among those who believe in evolution by natural selection (including Dawkins and others) as the antithesis of "Creationism".
Many who have no respect for Charles Darwin's contributions to science ascribe other, unsavoury meanings to "Darwinism". I refuse to cede the term to them, as they dishonour Darwin's genius.
Anybody who has the slightest doubt about Darwin's contribution to science should watch the new three-part series by Dawkins: [url=http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458]Part 1[/url] is on the web, and I'm still looking for a bootleg of Part 2.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:40
#20
Timebandit
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]What is the elephant in the room?
I submit that it is the West's war of agression against any country deemed to be of strategic interest to the West. And since Islam is so far the main ideological resistance to this (floundering) war, this calls for intellectuals to be pressed into service for whatever pretext: whether to bash "irrational" attitudes, religious belief in a pseudo-secularist world, "insufficient" integration in societies that discriminate actively against racialized groups, selectively-featured human rights abuses in targetted countries, etc.
As for the conceit that we are being "rational," Cueball is right, it has yet to substantively account for the pillage of the world and mass slaughters by European colonizers and, more recently, Auschwitz, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Guantanamo and mass pollution by the First World, so please give us a break and deal with your damn elephant... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
It's not my elephant, dude... Didn't see it come in. Did you bring it with you?
Is that an elephant chip on your shoulder? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I don't think you can easily make that connection when the same person who criticizes Islam tars Christianity, the religion of the white, European colonizers, with the same brush.
And as a religion -- ie: a system of thought and supernatural belief -- why shouldn't Islam be as much up for criticism as Christianity? Both have much to answer for in the blood of others.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:44
#21
500_Apples: "saying that supporting rationality is a western supremacist belief - that implies rationality was born in Europe"
I didn't say the former and it doesn't imply the latter.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:45
#22
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]... some of us are getting tired of shoveling s**t out of the room.[/b]
Yet you never seem to tire of shovelling st**w into it.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:48
#23
Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.
I'm sure you can think of any number of historical parallels.
Tue, 2008-08-12 09:49
#24
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.I'm sure you can think of any number of historical parallels.[/b]
Well put.
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:09
#25
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:There was a lot of excellent mathematics and astronomy taking place in Egypt, among the Mayans, in Mesopotamia and in ancient India. In fact the oldest known case of someone figuring out the heliocentric model of the solar system, with a spherical Earth, was in India, not the West.
The only thing "western" about science and rationality is that at this current stage in history, for a few hundred years, most of the most advanced science has been done in western countries. However, that is specific to this period in history, which is no way more special than any other period, past, or future for that matter.
Indeed there is a great video clip somewhere in which Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about how when you discover something you get to name it and most scientific names are arabic in origin, such as algebra.
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:15
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]Indeed there is a great video clip somewhere in which Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about how when you discover something you get to name it and most scientific names are arabic in origin, such as algebra.[/b]
Well, "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. Greek and Latin probably hold that honour. There are indeed several Arabic terms in mathematics, in the names of stars, etc.
It is important to remember that the great mathematicians and scientists in the respective "golden ages" of those societies never attributed their achievements to God, Allah, or any of that crowd.
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:15
#27
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Anybody who has the slightest doubt about Darwin's contribution to science should watch the new three-part series by Dawkins: [url=http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458]Part 1[/url] is on the web, and I'm still looking for a bootleg of Part 2.
The second part is available as a torrent at places like [url=http://www.mininova.org/tor/1686690]mininova[/url].
If you go to Dawkin's own [url=http://richarddawkins.net/]site.[/url] he generally always posts links to where his shows can be downloaded.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:17
#28
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:Well, "most" is a bit of an exaggeration.
Yes, you are right.
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:21
#29
"Do not honour straw man arguments
Do not honour straw man arguments
Do not honour straw man arguments..."
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:22
#30
quote:
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!
Unionist, Frustrated Mess et al say the same thing about religion. I don't believe it's Darwinism that's at fault, I believe that some people have used ideas about evolution to justify evil acts. Haven't some anti racist activists used evolutionary science and genetics to challenge white supremicists?
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:42
#31
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Well, let's say that it serves the interests of the western imperialists to criticize Islam on any number of counts. (I think it does.) It also serves the interests of western imperialists if those who oppose imperialism refuse to criticize Islam on any count, if they defend it against any criticism whatsoever and, indeed, insist on its superiority to other forms of thought or practice. This ultimately undermines the anti-imperialist cause, not least because it has abandoned any claim to honesty or integrity.[/b]
This is true, although I wouldn't want to read your first sentence as meaning that all criticism of Islam serves the interests of imperialism.
Martin has fallen into the trap set by the authors of the War on Terra, by accepting their lie that Islam is the "main ideological resistance" to imperialism. Islam thus becomes accepted as the great countervailing ideology to capitalist imperialism. Islam's ludicrous religious dogma makes it easy for the imperialists to discredit and denounce their enemies as fanatical, irrational terrorists, and to use that as a justification to attack Islamic nations and abuse Muslim individuals.
Then misguided opponents of imperialism leap to the defence of the indefensible nonsense that underpins Islam, thinking that doing so somehow strengthens the anti-imperialist cause - whereas in fact, it weakens it.
The view of the world as a bi-polar dynamic of "Islam versus Imperialism" is bullshit. You don't have to be a Muslim to be anti-imperialist and you don't have to be a Muslim nation to be targetted for regime change and conversion to a client state of the Empire. You can also be a Muslim nation and at the same time happily do the bidding of the IMF and its political masters in Washington.
As an ideological foil to capitalist imperialism, the religion of Islam offers nothing. It's no coincidence that the countries that today have gone the farthest to break with imperialism and combat its influence are inspired not by Islam but by socialism: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Islam is a false pole of attraction to those who are oppressed by imperialism. Only socialism can offer both a coherent critique of imperialism and a perspective to bring about its demise.
Those who would jealously guard the Islamic religion against all criticism only help to postpone the day when all anti-imperialist Muslims reject the false leadership of their religion and turn to socialism as the tool for understanding of the world as it is and action towards making the world as it could be.
The choice is not capitalism or Islam, but socialism or barbarism.
Tue, 2008-08-12 10:44
#32
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Darwinism is a term commonly used among those who believe in evolution by natural selection (including Dawkins and others) as the antithesis of "Creationism".[/b]
Are they winning?
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:00
#33
Good, M. Spector. Very good.
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:31
#34
Cueball
quote:
Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools."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.
"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about [b]multiculturalism[/b] and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."
Prof Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is author of books including the Selfish Gene, the Blind Watchmaker and the God Delusion.
"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or [b]Islamophobic.[/b]"
Prof Dawkins had recently finished a TV programme in which he went into a classroom of 15-year-olds at a secondary school in London.
I can't think of a serious scholar who would make broad sweeping statements about an ethnic minority based on a sample of students interviewed on a TV show. What Dawkins poses as a basis for his social "science", is indeed nothing but an anecdote.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001955]Doug, earliers began an interesting thread on the Power of the Anecdote, based on an article "How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results" here,[/url] where it says:
quote:
Our brains are belief engines that employ association learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old. So it is that any medical huckster promising that A will cure B has only to advertise a handful of successful anecdotes in the form of testimonials.
Surely Dawkins, the "professor", is not some puffed grandstanding bigot playing into popular racist superstition and beliefs about Muslims common among the the UK's white Christian majority, baesd on an "anecdote" he derived from an interview he did for a TV show?
I'd be interested in seeing some of the so called rationalists here outline the "scientific" basis of "Professor" Dawkins conclusions specifically targeting the UK's Muslim minority and its Multicultural policies.
Any takers?
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:41
#35
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]This is true, although I wouldn't want to read your first sentence as meaning that all criticism of Islam serves the interests of imperialism.
[/b]
No I didn't mean that - I probably wrote in too much haste - and I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
As an ideological foil to capitalist imperialism, the religion of Islam offers nothing. It's no coincidence that the countries that today have gone the farthest to break with imperialism and combat its influence are inspired not by Islam but by socialism: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Islam is a false pole of attraction to those who are oppressed by imperialism. Only socialism can offer both a coherent critique of imperialism and a perspective to bring about its demise.
I'm not sure the alternatives are quite so stark. A certain form of Christianity ("liberationist Christianity") plays a role in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru (along with what might be called "traditional Indian communism", at least in Peru). It's possible that some form of "liberationist Islam" could play a similar role in other areas of the world.
But I agree that the socialist element is essential.
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:45
#36
Cueball
Sorry Rosa, that is thread drift, we are vilifying Muslims on the basis of an interview that Professor Dawkins did on a popular TV program. Christians are not mentioned in the opening article. This is about "Islam" in schools.
People are reading in a lot to Dawkins statements about religion in schools. Dawkins is not talking about religion in a general sense, but the religion of preference of a good majority of the UK's Asian minority, and the problem of multiculturalism, not white Christians.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:51
#37
M. Spector
"Liberationist Christianity" and "Liberationist Islam" are hardly developed political ideologies, nor are they in any position to assume the leadership of the struggles of the world's oppressed. To the extent that Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru succeed in opposing imperialism, religious movements and traditions will play a minor role.
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:51
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I'd be interested in seeing some of the so called rationalists here outline what is "scientific" about "Professor" Dawkins conclusions, specifically targeting the UK's Muslim minority and Multicultural policies.
Any takers?
[/b]
I don't think I'd call myself a rationalist. But I'm not sure Dawkins has claimed that his statements about British Muslims and creationists was scientific. He may only have presented it as a general observation.
It seems plausible, though. There's a strong tendency for adherents of traditional religions of all kinds to take a creationist stance. I don't think creationism is implied by those religions - I think that's a misunderstanding, but it's a common one.
I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
([url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html] Here[/url] is an article by Terry Eagleton that makes that point in an amusing way). I also think he's wrong on many counts. But the fact that one of the religions he lashes out at is Islam doesn't make him a racist.
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:52
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Sorry Rosa, that is thread drift, we are vilifying Muslims on the basis of an interview that Professor Dawkins did on a popular TV program. Christians are not mentioned in the opening article. This is about "Islam" in schools.People are reading in a lot to Dawkins statements about religion in schools. Dawkins is not talking about religion in a general sense, but the religion of preference of a good majority of the UK's Asian minority, and the problem of multiculturalism, not white Christians.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
I wasn't talking about [i]white[/i] Christians. And my point was this:
quote:
It's possible that some form of "liberationist Islam" could play a similar role in other areas of the world.
- meaning an anti-imperialist role, amongst other things.
Tue, 2008-08-12 11:56
#40
M. Spector
Apparently cueball is under the impression that Richard Dawkins wrote the article in the Telegraph that started this thread. He certainly seems to want to blame Dawkins for any perceived lack of balance in that article.
And of course, never having read any of Dawkins's books, cueball seeks to portray Dawkins as a shill for imperialist war against Islam, while giving Christianity a free pass.
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:05
#41
Cueball
Prejudice abounds, as well as unfounded assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. I did in fact read the "Selfish Gene". I also liked Carl Sagan, but I would hardly turn to a popularizer of Astronomy and Physics for my insights into social science.
Back to Professor Dawkins (the biologist) anecdotes and pop-sociology, about the problem of Multiculturalism, and ignorant Asian Muslim children in schools.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:06
#42
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
What Dawkins poses as a basis for his social "science", is indeed nothing but an anecdote.[/b]
Sadly, human professors and human scientists are as prone as anyone else when it comes to advancing opinions based on anecdotal evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
.[/b]
Does anyone? Virtually everything about a supernatural based approach to explaining our universe has to be taken on faith. Supernatural explanations are so fantastical, and can't ever be verified or percieved by our senses, that I wonder if anyone can really understand any religion.
If Dawkins can't understand religion of any kind, I can certainly relate.
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:06
#43
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]I don't think Dawkins really understands religion of any kind.
([url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html] Here[/url] is an article by Terry Eagleton that makes that point in an amusing way).[/b]
Yeah, and here is an article that shows that the criticisms by Eagleton and others along these lines is horse manure - "in an amusing way":
quote:
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics. - [url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php]Sourc...
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:08
#44
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]Sadly, human professors and human scientists are as prone as anyone else when it comes to advancing opinions based on anecdotal evidence.[/b]
Yes, and they are worth sweet fuck all, as science, or social science, or sociology. But if you want truck driver flying the airplane you are riding in that is fine by me.
I would think that a reputable scholar would contain himself to his field of specialization, instead throwing the weight of his prestigious position behind yet another attack upon the UK's Asian Muslim community in the press, based on a single interview he did with some teenagers on a TV show.
Hey! But that is the state of "rationalism" today!
[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:11
#45
Sven
Good stuff, M. Spector. Very funny. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:13
#46
Cueball
Look, you guys have a new friend. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:14
#47
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB][/QB]
Well, there's a reason I described it as "amusing" rather than "incisive"!
However, I don't think Dawkins understands religion any better than religious fundamentalists do. Both he and they are profoundly unhistorical in their approach. But this really is thread drift.
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:16
#48
Cueball
Yes, lets get back to the problems of multiculturalism and the Asian communities appearance in schools in the UK.
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:16
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I can't think of a serious scholar who would make broad sweeping statements about an ethnic minority based on a sample of students interviewed on a TV show. [/b]
Muslims - "an ethnic minority"????????
No kidding????
What, is Islam hereditary now?
Talk to me about the Lebanese. Or Filipinos. Or Punjabis. Or Bengalis. Or Kashmiris. Are the "Muslim" flavour of each of those a different "ethnic minority"????
This discussion is rapidly degenerating. Islam is a legitimate target for scorn, laughter, condemnation, refutation, and ridicule. Its pernicious influence has [b]no place[/b] in any modern public school system, let alone anywhere that science and reason and logic are being discussed.
But people who happen to be of Muslim faith are not "ethnic". That, with the greatest of respect, is crap.
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:17
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:Back to Professor Dawkins (the biologist) anecdotes and pop-sociology, about the problem of Multiculturalism, and ignorant Asian Muslim children in schools.
Yet you have no problem spreading your ignorance about biology on this thread about the teaching of non-science in science classrooms. Then you furthermore continue to spread your lie that Dawkins picks on Muslims based on one newspaper article about a snippet of an interview conducted with a different newspaper while ignoring his abundant writings on other religions.
Tue, 2008-08-12 12:19
#51
M. Spector
quote:
About a hundred academics, science and RE teachers, students and educationalists, plus a few creationists, gathered for a stimulating if rather worrying day. Humanist philosopher David Papineau and humanist scientist Steve Jones were among the speakers robustly defending scientific method, scientific theories and evidence. Some science teachers also spoke, and Professor Russell Stannard gave an excellent talk on the relative recency and general absurdity of biblical literalism from his perspective as a scientist and a Christian. The Islamic version of creationism – which accepts evolution within species but not from one species into another – was described by Dr Khalid Anees and endorsed by a group of Muslim sixth formers; this was clearly a source of difficulty for the science teachers at the conference who wanted to defend science without alienating their Muslim pupils. It was also clear from some teachers present that relativistic teaching that ‘it’s all just a theory’ is alive and well in some RE lessons. It seems that pervasive forms of anti-scientific thinking and creationism are common in schools, and not just in overtly creationist ones.
[url=http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1544]... Humanist Association, 2003[/url]