|
|
|
|
Not sure if this link will work, hope it does. : ) Just for fun the South Park way.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/44805/
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
ok, who is dawkins?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Richard Dawkins is Professor for the Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. I've mentioned him in two or three posts, most recently within the last couple of weeks, when I referred to the scale of 1 to 7 between absolute religious faith (1) and absolute denial that a god exists (7). Dawkins describes himself as a 6, leaning towards a 7.
His recent book, 'The God Delusion', is the first to launch an outright attack on religion (ALL religion), though his atheistic views are well-known throgh his public appearances and broadcasts. He is especially opposed to so-called 'faith schools', which he sees (rightly, in my view) as a means to indoctrinate children before they develop sufficient mental capacity to reason for themselves.
The Israeli psychologist George Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged from 8 to 14, the Biblical account of the Battle of Jericho, as set out in the Book of Joshua. The English translation (King James Bible) is as follows -
"Joshua said unto the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction ... but all silver and gold, and all vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD ... Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword ... And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD."
The children were then asked a simple moral question: "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?". They had to choose between (A) (total approval), (B) (Partial approval) or (C) (Total disapproval).
At the same time, a control group of 168 children was asked the same question, except that 'Joshua' became 'General Lin', and 'Israel' became 'A Chinese kingdom 3000 years ago'.
Dawkins examines the responses in detail, but I'll stick to the percentage results. In the main group, 66% chose (A), 8% chose (B) and 26% chose (C). In the control group, 7% chose (A), 18% chose (B) and 75% chose (C).
Could there be clearer evidence of indoctrination? Morality is clearly subservient to religion.
I would stress that I chose this example because it can be summarised fairly briefly, I am not suggesting that religions other than Judaism are less culpable - it's very clear that they aren't.
I don't accept everything that Professor Dawkins says, but his arguments are persuasive and, above all, scientifically reasoned. I'm content to argue the merits of his case with anyone - but only if they confirm that they have read 'The God Delusion'.
Dawkins covers and derides the religious attitude to homosexuality - a particularly relevant consideration when the Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham has just threatened to withdraw Roman Catholic co-operation if the UK government continues with its proposed legislation to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services.
I recommend that any thinking adult, whatever his/her religious persuasion, should read 'The God Delusion'; it may not change your views, but your thinking will be challenged - and that has GOT to be a good thing!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Thanks for fleshing out the article cossie.
'The God Delusion' is now definitely on my 'To Read' list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don’t have the time to get into this in any depth, I will say that I haven’t read the book but my interest was peeked when you first mentioned him. I think we have the book around the house somewhere.
The thing that I found humorous was their likening his philosophy to religious dogma in its own right which isn’t to far fetched, almost any time someone says they have the answer you can almost be certain that they don’t. I say too much though, as you said I can discern nothing until I read his book. I just fear dogma of any type and was what they were hinting at in that piece.
I’ll look around, see if we have it.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi steve, welcome to the board.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Hi Jay, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... so, if it's around the house, you must have bought it recently.
I found the South Park take irritating, simply because it seemed that the writers had chosen to read a hostile review rather than to read the book itself.
Dawkins is first and foremost a scientist. Yes, he has opinions and no, I don't agree with all of them. But throughout the book his arguments are underpinned by genuine scientific research. He forms opinions in a properly scientific manner based upon his quoted sources. I don't think that all of his opinions are wholly valid, and he acknowledges that himself. Such an approach cannot, by linguistic definition, be dogmatic, and the South Park writers are being deliberately provocative (as so often before!) in suggesting otherwise.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
