1. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    27 Dec '12 23:09
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
  2. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    28 Dec '12 00:00
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
    Are you a fundamentalist Christian kd2acz? (do you believe the world is roughly 6000 years old and stuff?)
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    28 Dec '12 00:05
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
    Not much of a criticism as far as I can see. Just the concentration on fundies.
    The problem with fundies is they never stop trying to take over.

    Case in point is the battle to force science teachers in the US bible belt and in other countries as well, to force creation to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution which has 150 years of evidence piled up for it. That is just a tactic to sow plausible deniability on a real science for the express purpose of gaining more political power.

    THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    28 Dec '12 00:32
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
    I think Higgs should write his own book on the relation between science and religion. I'd like to see it.
  5. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    28 Dec '12 01:47
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Are you a fundamentalist Christian kd2acz? (do you believe the world is roughly 6000 years old and stuff?)
    Don't call myself much of anything, and I fail to see your point in light of the article and the OP. Your thoughts depend not on mine, why not share? I thought the article was interesting and wanted to know what ya'll thought.
  6. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    28 Dec '12 02:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Not much of a criticism as far as I can see. Just the concentration on fundies.
    The problem with fundies is they never stop tryi ... [text shortened]...
    THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.
    I know your definition of fundies is towards people of faith, specifically Christians... at least this is what I have seen in your posts. The thing I like about the article is that it shows fundamentalism can rest with those that are not religious in any way, at least this is how I read Higgs assertion of Dawkins. And this from a guy well respected in the science community that makes no claim to a faith. We are sometimes so busy categorizing people, we often don't see the trees through the forest and our own hypocrisy.

    THAT is the problem with fundies. They are ALWAYS after more power. The power to corrupt young minds.[/b]



    I could not have said this better myself!
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    28 Dec '12 14:082 edits
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/no-one-should-be-embarrassed-to-speak-the-truth/


    Peter Higgs, the physicist, has spoken out against Richard Dawkins’ views.

    “What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. “Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”

    You know, whenever I see people babbling ignorantly like this, I have this urge to strap them down Clockwork Orange style and force them to watch an hour of James Dobson or Tony Perkins or Ken Ham or Bryan Fischer, and then ask them, “Do you still think Dawkins is a fundamentalist?” The only way you can make this ridiculous comparison is by cultivating a near-total ignorance of what fundamentalists are actually like. But then I have to confess that forcing someone to correct their folly and putting them to the question is exactly what a fundamentalist would do, so I can’t. (I notice in the article that Dawkins simply refused to respond to Higgs.)

    [i]
    He agreed with some of Dawkins’ thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist’s approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins’ approach “embarrassing”.

    Higgs is an atheist. He agrees with Dawkins that religion has lead to some ugly outcomes. But speaking out about them? Actually saying out loud in public that religion is wrong, faith is a delusion, and that there is no god? Oh dearie me, how embarrassing. Not the thing a proper gentleman would do at all.

    And that’s really the problem. Society has so thoroughly beaten the default assumption of respect for religious lies into our heads that even many atheists are made deeply uncomfortable at the prospect of openly rejecting faith-based nonsense. But criticizing fellow atheists? That’s easy. That’s thoroughly sanctioned by culture. You can freely make stupid accusations against atheists without suffering the pushback you’d get if you made honest statements of fact about priests.

    What I learned from this interview is mainly that Peter Higgs is an intellectual coward who retreats from his convictions in the face of potential social disapproval, and will cheerfully join in the mob in kicking a fellow atheist. He should be…embarrassed.
    [/i]
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    28 Dec '12 19:131 edit
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    What are your thoughts...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
    I like this one.

    YouTube

    P.S. I think Richard Dawkins is a politician, not a scientist.
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    28 Dec '12 20:26
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    ... I think Richard Dawkins is a politician, not a scientist.
    I'd vote for him if he was but unfortunately (in this case)
    what you "think" and reality are totally different.

    Regarding the video, Higgs is not disagreeing with Dawkins
    but merely disagreeing with his style. Dawkins is certainly
    as zealous as fundamentalists but his arguments are soundly
    based on facts not fiction so the comparison should stop there.

    And finally; why is anyone surprised when atheists disagree?
    Atheism is not a belief system.
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 Dec '12 20:42
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Are you a fundamentalist Christian kd2acz? (do you believe the world is roughly 6000 years old and stuff?)
    irrelevant. please read the link he provided thoroughly and you will understand how far off-topic you posted
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 Dec '12 20:51
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/no-one-should-be-embarrassed-to-speak-the-truth/


    [b]Peter Higgs, the physicist, has spoken out against Richard Dawkins’ views.

    “What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said ...[text shortened]... heerfully join in the mob in kicking a fellow atheist. He should be…embarrassed.
    [/b]
    [/b]
    i am the bold fragments are your own personal thoughts. so long story short, you do not agree with higgs, how basically says that science and religion are incompatible or compatible in the same way spaghetti sauce and swiss clocks are compatible or incompatible.


    they are unrelated. the main issue is that some insane people are trying to mix them, and some equally insane people are bothering with telling the first group that they shouldn't mix. do you think you should be vehement in telling insane people not to pour spaghetti sauce over their clocks? that is why dawkings is embarassing according to higgs (an opinion with which i agree). dawkings is an evolutionist scientist, yet he goes outside his field of expertise and yells to whomever is listening just how stupid everyone with different beliefs than him are.
  12. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2437
    28 Dec '12 22:28
    The logical mind should not be afraid to pronounce out loud that is it absurd to prohibit the flipping of a light switch on Saturdays.
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    28 Dec '12 23:40
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i am the bold fragments are your own personal thoughts. so long story short, you do not agree with higgs, how basically says that science and religion are incompatible or compatible in the same way spaghetti sauce and swiss clocks are compatible or incompatible.


    they are unrelated. the main issue is that some insane people are trying to mix the ...[text shortened]... yells to whomever is listening just how stupid everyone with different beliefs than him are.
    The entire quoted section is quoted from the blog I linked to.

    The bold bits are the words of the person who wrote the blog (PZ Myers).
    The non-bold bits are where he quotes the article by Higgs.

    I posted it because I agree with what PZ Myers said.


    As for the rest...

    Try reposting in coherent sentences and then I can respond.




    However, all religions try to say things about the world.
    They say things like afterlives, souls or gods exist, and that these things
    effect the world.

    This puts every religion squarely in the territory of science, and squarely
    against science.

    All religions also require irrational faith based belief.

    This puts all religions squarely against the rational evidence based foundation of
    science.

    Pointing out that religions are not just stupid but wrong is not embarrassing.

    At least not to anyone who hasn't had an irrational respect for stupidity beat into them.
  14. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    28 Dec '12 23:45
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    However, all religions try to say things about the world.
    They say things like afterlives, souls or gods exist, and that these things
    effect the world.

    This puts every religion squarely in the territory of science, and squarely
    against science.

    All religions also require irrational faith based belief.

    This puts all religions squarely against the rational evidence based foundation of
    science.
    How do you account for scientists who happen to be Christians?

    They do exist, you know.
  15. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    29 Dec '12 00:40
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    How do you account for scientists who happen to be Christians?

    They do exist, you know.
    They are confused.

    And also wrong.

    People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.

    The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
    doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.

    What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods than
    non-scientists, and biologists and physicists are the least likely to believe out of the
    different scientific disciplines.
    So those that study the world closest, and deal with the questions religion claims to
    tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.
Back to Top