One of the most important things to keep in mind at all times and in any situation you find yourself is to remember to listen.
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and many more sometimes forget to listen to other people's views and perspectives. I almost feel like there's some kind of clique that they are in and ridicule anyone who thinks differently from them. But, the main point to make here is that religion has been carefully cushioned and protected from criticism for so long and this is the first real time in history that people are outright questioning and dismantling it. And I completely agree with what they are arguing and truly believe that religion, and its critique, should be at the center of our conversation as a global family. However, I am really concerned about how these incredibly smart and funny atheists are trying to make their point. Ridicule and arrogance will not win the fight against dogmatic religion and the indoctrination of children. In fact, I fear, it might do quite the opposite.
Here are a few clips and articles outlining a recent controversy concerning Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which argues that Intelligent Design (ie the belief that God designed and created the Universe and every living being within it) is a legitimate theory that should be included in the teaching of science to students.
Click here for the trailer of the movie
Click here for an interview with Ben Stein on CNN with Glenn Beck
Click here for another interview with Ben Stein on FOX News
Now, click here for an article written by Richard Dawkins about being tricked into being in a movie pushing for free speech as well as addressing the many claims the movie makes (please take the time to read the whole thing)
And click here for a clip of Dawkins and PZ Myers discussing being thrown out at the premiere of the movie
Click here for a sort of critique of Stein's interviews and his attempt to link Evolution with the Holocaust
This movie actually led to the launch of a website dedicated to addressing the many claims that the film makes
Now, I want to make a very important point here. Many people disagree with atheism and Darwinism because they see them as just another dogma or another type of 'religion'. So, let's look at the definition of those two words:
Dogma:
1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.
2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet.
3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
"dogma." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 06 Nov. 2008.
Religion:
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.
3. (R. C. Ch.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion. --Trench.
4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct. [R.]
"religion." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 06 Nov. 2008.
Now, what needs to be stressed here is that Science is not offering another kind of 'truth' (or an absolute 'Truth'). In fact, science continuously self-analyzes and critiques every hypothesis in order to get closer and closer to theories and laws that could explain our surroundings. Atheists are not pushing for another doctrine or claiming to know the 'truth, the way and the light'. They are arguing that relying on unsubstantiated claims and belief without evidence to explain our highly complex Universe is simply not good enough. Not only do they critique theism, but everything. Nothing is free from critique to an atheist and that's why it is nothing to be scared of or intimidated by.
Atheists don't claim to know everything. They are simply courageously standing up and saying "We don't know everything, so let's explore our Universe together free from the chains of any omniscient, omnipotent deity."
i watched 'expelled' and then some interviews with ben stein and something that stuck out for me was when he says "i think people want to suppress the idea that there's an intelligent designer, i call him God, because they think if there is a god they'll be held morally responsible. if there is no god, if it all happens by accident, random mutation and natural selection "i'm not responsible i'm just a creature of my genes", but if there is a god "i'm morally responsible"." i feel like he's saying atheists would act in a different way if they knew they would face judgement when they die, but for me morals and morality have no correlation with religion. i'm not religious nor do i believe in a god, but i am a moral being, i know what feels right and feels wrong regardless of pending judgement. my actions aren't influenced by whether or not i think i'm going to be punished when i die, i base them on am i hurting someone? am i marginalizing someone? i want to be good to my fellow man because that's what feels right to me and for no other reason.
ReplyDeleteI am a little upset a Ben Stein's argument that the darwinists are pushing back against creationism purely out of some sense of inferiority or lack of confidence in their own argument.
ReplyDeleteGlen Beck seems to go further with this argument stating that kids are being taught a "liberal" and "socialist" theory.
The whole idea that Darwins theories are not being questioned, is, as you stated, ridiculous.
Rousing topic.
You both make very good points and you have raised one of the popular arguments that a lot of religious people make: how can we be moral without believing in some kind of higher power?
ReplyDeleteAnd to this, I say that people who base their morality on the Bible, for instance, probably haven't read it. It is full of murder, rape, genocide, contradictions and fear-mongering. While there are some very good ethical teachings (particularly in the New Testament) people are forced to 'pick and choose' which lessons to grip onto. So, we can probably rule out relying on the Bible (or the Koran and others which are equally terrible sources for 'good') for our morality. Another religious view is to say that we are good to each other because we fear what will happen to us and our loved ones if we don't act in accordance with 'god'. Now, that is one of the most selfish reasons to be good to another person, just to save your own skin.
So, what are we left with. It is clear that most of us don't base our morality on 'holy books' or the fear that we will be struck down from heaven. Is it possible to think that we are good and moral to each other because we are all part of one family? Because we genuinely care for each other? Because we have evolved past basic animal instincts and are conscious beings?
Religious people claim that without religion, all hell will break lose (no pun intended..!), but that is simply not the case. Suicide bombings, bride burnings, executions for 'adultery', etc are incredibly violent acts all justified in the name of religion. For me, this world would be much more loving, open and safe without the shackles of religion.
Pam - this is a great discussion and I applaud you on it and the direction of your blog. I really enjoy your following of current events. It's inspiring. I agree with you wholeheartedly in your last comment (above).
ReplyDeleteThank you!
It's more about science than religion.
ReplyDeleteYou all clearly recognize the academic freedom issue at play here.
As you know, in Expelled Stein points out that America is supposed to believe in free speech and academic freedom, yet on the issues of evolution and intelligent design right now, there is precious little freedom of discussion. Dawkins, and the other Darwinists only want to discuss intelligent design in order to put it down, and to build up Darwinian evolution. They're intolerant of any other views.
We hope to change that. We want to turn Darwin Day (Feb 12) into Academic Freedom Day. Visit www.academicfreedomday.com, and be sure to sign the petition at www.academicfreedompetition.com, and tell you friends to sign as well.
Thanks for the comment and I definitely appreciate your views. However, I think what most scientists are saying is that Intelligent Design is simply not a viable scientific theory. It raises far more questions than answers and the scientific community has pretty much agreed for awhile that it does not bring us any closer to really understanding our world.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do agree that there should always be open and honest discourse, particularly in this conversation about science and religion. People who truly believe in intelligent design should be allowed to voice their opinion. However, professors who actually teach and support ID as a possible scientific theory are doing much more damage to academic integrity.
While ID is a belief that many people hold and should be included in the discussion, it should not be proposed as a viable alternative to Evolution. This is not because of any kind of bias or prejudice. It is because the theory of evolution has been tested and retested with evidence continuing to support it. If evidence suggested otherwise the scientific community would gladly re-examine Evolution, however such evidence has yet to surface.
On the other hand, ID makes claims that are technically impossible to test in a scientific manner. It is based on the idea that a higher power created and designed life which is a very hard idea to disprove.
Therefore, ID is more of a set of beliefs than a viable scientific theory and should not be treated otherwise.
As to the concern for Academic Freedom, please refer to www.expelledexposed.com which argues that the claims made by the 'persecuted' were fabricated and exaggerated in order to create controversy out of nothing.