This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

Anvil's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by Anvil

Comment 82 by larriji

Wow . . . Some of the comments here demonstrate, like Richard Dawkins, a definite intolerance for the freedom to believe either in either a religion, or God.

I would have thought that most people on this site - including Richard Dawkins - would support your freedom to believe in gods, goblins, faeries, unicorns, or whatever you so wish. It is simply that your freedom to believe in unevidenced whatever should not impair others from the aquisition of knowledge.

By the way, Some of the comments here may well demonstrate intolerance in one form or another, but then you have a cut & paste facility to call out those individuals should you wish to do so rather than use the phrase 'some of the comments here' incorrectly when you really mean most, or all.

Say what you mean - mean what you say.

It seems that Dawkins and others like him (...)

What do you mean here? Do you mean white people? People of late middle-age? English people? Or do you mean people who do not believe in your specific god or, indeed, in any gods?

Perhaps you mean people who would rather ask the question 'how', rather than 'why'?

Anyway, you continue, 'Dawkins and others like him ...'

... have absolutely no memory of any kind of positive impact that the Christian faith has had in England or any other nation for that matter.

How could it not have an impact? Both positive and negative? This was a period of absolutism. Few were allowed to ask 'how'. The many were simply to be told 'why'.

I will agree with you though, absolutism, like dictatorships and all other tyrannies, can, and does, have positive impacts on society.

Anybody who knows scientific experimentation and discovery in 19th century England should also know that Michael Faraday was perhaps one of the greatest in history of England and the world.

Absolutely. Many of us here would say he is one of the founding fathers of experimentation. A true hero of the enlightenment, a shining star in a coming age of reason. A man who was to change this world forever in ways unimagined. A man who unsatisfied with being told 'why', decided to ask 'how'.

He was also a devoted member of his church and preached many sermons.

What would be unusual about this? He lived in a christian nation in christian europe?

Let me ask you something: do you think that Faraday, sat at the back of a lecture at the Royal Institution, or reading through the philosophical transactions of the Royal Society, would break down in tears upon learning that Benjamin Franklin had discovered that lightening destroying churches was an act of nature and not an act of a god?

No, indeed he would have consumed himself in the rush to grab a kite and a key - the how of experimentation, of contingent knowledge, of science - not the why of an angry god.

The freedoms that we have as a nation were first pushed by Christians in England. Freedom of the press, to publish the Bible. Freedom to preach any sermon other than what was approved by the church.

They could hardly have been pushed by Hindu's, could they?

The translation of the Bible into English - ordained by King James - was perhaps one of the greatest acts of learning in Western civilization.

Why do you think anyone on this site would disagree with this statement? Of course I'm sure your knowledge of this also extends to the fact that the publication of this bible was also one of the greatest acts of propaganda in Western civilisation. It had little to do with bringing a god or gods to the populace - they already had them.

And yet, if you ask any atheist, like Dawkins, they would probably think it was not worth the effort - or that it was a bad thing.

Again, another sweeping, and incorrect, statement. I believe Dawkins is widely known as seeing the KJV as a stunning example of both art and literature of the day.

In concluding, let me ask you this: do you believe that your right and freedom to believe in an unevidenced whatever should impede the right, and freedom, of others to aquire knowledge - gained through a methodolgy inspired by giants such as Faraday - that allows them a clearer image of reality - of truth?

Do you?

Anvil.

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:09:15 UTC | #950533