Richard Dawkins Slams Pope as 'Stupid' for Views on Condoms and Aids in Africa

[Focus]

What concerns me more is that he's receiving honorary degrees from universities. From what I've looked at in terms of scholarly work, he doesn't seem to be a particularly accomplished scientist. Not that he's a bad scientist, but he doesn't seem to have done anything above and beyond your average professor. This points to a disturbing trend in which people seem to associate science with atheism. There are people out there who whip out their American Atheists clubcard as if it were a scientific PhD. Good science has nothing to do with religious beliefs. You can be a good scientist and believe in witchcraft (in fact, such people exist). What I would like to know is: precisely why is Dawkins being honored here? And if it's for science, precisely what scientific work has he done to merit the honor? Running around and crying about how he hates the god whose existence he rejects doesn't count.

Richard Dawkins is a public comunicator. He is trying to get the public to understand science. There are a lot of brilliant researchers that are terrible teachers to people studying at university, let alone to the people that don't even know the basics of science. Good science is agnostic however it isn't unfair to say most scientists aren't very religious. If you are willing to accept the holy books as they are (literally) then there are conflics with science. Someone who isn't open to new ideas and willing to reject evidence because of their faith does not make a very good scientist.

 

[turbo]

It is true that partner fidelity (faithful monogamous relationships) would slow the spread of HIV. It is also true that if teenagers don't engage in sex before marriage, then rampant teen pregnancy could be a problem of the past. It is, however, ridiculous to assert that a "just say no" campaign (sociological or religious-based) will significantly address these problems, and would be more effective than condoms in preventing unwanted outcomes. It is necessary to use education, prevention, and medical treatments to slow the spread of HIV and it is irresponsible to suggest that we would be better off not using the most effective tools at our disposal.

As for how well religion plays into abstinence, we had three active churches in the town that I grew up in. A very well-loved elderly Congregationalist minister was defrocked because he was caught in flagrante delicto with an underage prostitute (her mother ran the brothel). A very conservative Nazarene minister moved on after an inconvenient teen pregnancy occurred in his flock. In addition, two Roman Catholic priests were removed in a period of about 5 years, due to some unspecified "problems" with altar boys. The third priest seemed safer. He brought his own housekeeper and she lived with him, both at the rectory, and at his lake-side camp in summers. If the people preaching abstinence can't manage to practice it, why should we have any reasonable expectation that the people being preached to will do so? BTW, the two priests that were removed from our little parish weren't defrocked. They were just foisted off on other parishes.

 

[Proton Soup]

Somewhat related, I thought this was interesting.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june09/aids_sa_03-23.html

I don't know what motivates the Pope's comments, nor do I understand them, but there could be deeper cultural issues involved.

i think i know, or at least have a strong opinion on it.

the catholic church isn't just against premarital and extramarital sex. they are completely opposed to birth control, even in marriage, save the rhythm method. they are also opposed to masturbation. what could be the motivation?

the motivation is children. the church knows that they cannot grow the church through conversions alone. well, maybe they could, but the salt has lost its saltiness as they say. and both of these doctrines (based more on argumentation than any scriptural guidelines) encourage breeding. lack of an outlet for sexual frustration via masturbation encourages early marriage where fertility rates are highest, and lack of birth control in church marriages brings a steady supply of infant baptisms. thus, growing the church.

and, fwiw, it's not just the pope. not all of islam agrees with condom use, either. so i suspect that with africa being such a huge missionary field for both, neither is likely to back down from their position anytime soon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pius-kamau/islam-condoms-and-aids_b_120418.html

 

[Evo]

Very strange.


http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527376


Is completely at odds with, e.g., the Lancet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm

And yet:


Could an expert weight in on the merits of the peer-reviewed research being cited - what is the state of knowledge/certainty?

This was one guys "conclusions", a number of his colleagues disagree according to the article, and there were no "peer reviewed" papers cited in the article so we can see what he used from "2004".

But a number of Green’s colleagues do not completely agree with his conclusions.

“Right now condoms are the most effective means we have available for preventing the spread of HIV,” said Abdoulaye Dieng Sarr, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

 

[Mgt3]

In my opinion, this is more of a political statement than anything. I mean, imagine John McCain calling Obama "stupid". What a complete outcry it would become.

How does that equate? How does that equate? What's the point? How does the death of millions of people caused by a heinous disease resulting from following a religious decree equate to a political candidate making a meaningless forgettable remark during a grandstanding episode? Care to explain that to us?

 

[Proton Soup]

How does that equate? How does that equate? What's the point? How does the death of millions of people caused by a heinous disease resulting from following a religious decree equate to a political candidate making a meaningless forgettable remark during a grandstanding episode? Care to explain that to us?

it's pretty easy to explain, really. if the current religious beliefs there are such that monogamy is less of a priority (or even considered undesirable), then disease rates should be higher than in nations whose religious beliefs promote monogamy.

 

[BobG]

I stress the official statement. All (easy) references I find on the web indicate the contrary. For instance from wikipedia on Heliocentrism


Please, I would appreciate if you can clarify and provide a better reference.

Just two things:

1) Cardinal Bellarmine lived at the same time as Galileo. Koestler's book that quoted Bellarmine was written in 1959.

2) Bellarmine's opinion did form the basis of the church's "official" opinion, which was basically don't have an official position. There was no pressing reason for the church to stake itself to any celestial theory, whether the Ptolemaic model, the Brahe model, or the Copernican model. That was fairly reasonable and safe - the Copernican model was as problematic as the Ptolemaic model (and the Keplerian model hadn't gained much popularity yet).

Galileo's works on heliocentrism were banned (specifically the book that the Pope thought mocked him personally) and that was extended to any book on heliocentrism until Newton came along in the 1700's. Banning books about heliocentrism is pretty much a de facto anti-heliocentrism position whether the church had an official position celestial mechanics or not. Still, a ban by a pope being the official position of the church is a little like saying authorization of torture by a US President makes torturing prisoners the official position of the US. A subtle distinction maybe, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the Earth but the Earth circles the sun". Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. ... For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.

...

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.

 

[humanino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

That's actually where I read it first :

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

 

[f95toli]

What concerns me more is that he's receiving honorary degrees from universities. From what I've looked at in terms of scholarly work, he doesn't seem to be a particularly accomplished scientist. Not that he's a bad scientist, but he doesn't seem to have done anything above and beyond your average professor.

I think you are missing the point a bit. It might very well be true that Dawkins hasn't actually done anything very significant in evolutionary biology for a long time (although he was, and is, definitely a well known name in theoretical evolutionary biology even before he became a well-known public figure). However, this is at least in part simply because he was for many years held the Charles Simonyi Professorship in public understanding at Oxford. Hence, most of the time when you saw him on TV, read his articles etc he was actually doing his job; a job he happened to be very good at. Dawking is a brilliant writer and I really enjoy reading his books on evolution (most of which are "pure science" and do not include anything about atheism).

Dawking retired last year, the chair is now held by Marcus du Sautoy (which is why du Sautoy is now on TV on a regular basis, he even recorded a segment where I work a few months ago). du Sautoy is a mathematician so presumably he will be less controversial.

 

[BobG]

That's actually where I read it first :

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Here's what Pope John Paul II said: http://bertie.ccsu.edu/~dsb/naturesci/Cosmology/GalileoPope.html

In fact as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the Earth orbited round the sun, one should "interpret with great circumspection" every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the Earth is immobile and "say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false". Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth, but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant". A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: "Truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself'.

Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate, which had not ceased to evolve thereafter was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele

From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth", in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of "dogmatic" obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth. This myth has played a considerable cultural role. It has helped to anchor a number of scientists of good faith in the idea that there was an incompatibility between the spirit of science and its rules of research on the one hand and the Christian faith on the other. A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.

If you read the entire address, he did express regret over how the Galileo feud was handled. I guess he certainly concedes that the Earth orbits the Sun, but that wasn't the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. That issue had been dead for over a century. And it's certainly incorrect to say the church conceded that the Earth wasn't stationary because of the study. The church refused to commit to any model at the time (The Pope's address focuses on how Bellarmine felt things should be handled if Galileo's model were proven, but Bellarmine's main thrust was the dangers of staking the church to a model that might be wrong.)

 

[humanino]

...

Let me see if I understand your point. When the pope JP2 concedes

The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.

I should read that as "of course we know for a very long time that the Earth is not stationary, but it's so obvious that we did not care to make a statement earlier". Well, if it's more or less the correct interpretation, we certainly agree. So indeed, I should rephrase what bothers me most : it is that they did not care to make the official statement earlier. I don't think people in Vatican are stupid. I reproach them from being to far from the people. It's in fact exactly the problem at hand.

 

[mheslep]

I have to disagree with you entirely. As Dawkins is a scientist, I think he's far more qualified to comment on the effect of religious claims on the real world, when compared to the pope. I think he knows exactly what he's talking about, when it comes to religion.

Also, I also don't think he's perpetuating hate by pointing out what he thinks are the irrational beliefs of a large number of people. Arguing against the ideas of people with words isn't inciting hatred. I think you're mistaking his passion with hatred.

Dawkins may be a competent scientist, but he is not dispassionate on the subject of religion. He frequently leaves the the path of rationale discourse to indulge in inflammatory "I am the one true source of truth" egoistic statements on the subject.

 

[NeoDevin]

He frequently leaves the the path of rationale discourse to indulge in inflammatory "I am the one true source of truth" egoistic statements on the subject.

I think a better paraphrase of his ideas would be "Science is the one source of knowledge"

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't really care who calls whom stupid. If Dawkins said Matt Damon or Alec Baldwin was stupid, people would chuckle and move on with their lives, feeling neither outraged nor influenced. Why do we, as a society, still need to tiptoe around religious figures? Some people think the Pope really is dumb. Get over it.

- Warren

Okay fine, you don't care who calls who stupid. But do you care about dealing with HIV in Africa? Do you care that Dawkins is pushing a specific course of action, for no (apparent) reason besides it gives him a soapbox to push his political agenda? And while you might not be influenced, do you care about the people who are influenced, and will use this to fuel their hatred of religion?

 

[arildno]

Dawkins may be a competent scientist, but he is not dispassionate on the subject of religion.

Why do you think emotional anaemia is equivalent to reason, while passionate participation is anti-thetical to it??

He frequently leaves the the path of rationale discourse to indulge in inflammatory "I am the one true source of truth" egoistic statements on the subject.

No, he has never indicated anything of that sort.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Why do you think emotional anaemia is equivalent to reason, while passionate participation is anti-thetical to it??

This isn't an altogether outrageous idea. Stoicism, which took root in the Hellenistic period, is based on the idea of eliminating 'emotion' (thought to be unwanted movements of the mind) from all decisions-forgive me for what may be a poor job in describing the stoicism movement, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/. Although today ideas have changed, it is generally understood that "too much passion" is a bad thing.

 

[Ghost803]

I like Dawkins and I think his over all effect is beneficial. His biting words and sarcasm might be a bit unnecessary in many parts of Europe, where being an atheist isn't anything controversial.

But over here, I think many choose to hide their disbelief out of fear of osctricism. And besides, let's face it. There is a fundamental conflict between organized religion and science. One props up tradition and superstition, while the other chips away ignorance that is the base of those beliefs. But those that seem to be in a head to head battle with science are, in my opinion, Fundamental Islam, Evangelical Christianity, and Roman Catholism (Not so much, but the grand scale and chain of command that is unique to Catholism gets it up there).

In my experiences with Hinduism, there is no central structure and the religion doesn't care how old the world is or claim that man is the center of everything. So the findings of science, that seem to imply that man is not so "special" doesn't seem to be a slap in the face to Hinduism. With that said, there are plenty of instance of independent temples duping the poor and uneducated to make money just as with any other religion.

I know I went a little off topic from my point, that Dawkins' effect is beneficial. Back to that, I see him as speaking more to the silent atheist community and as an organizer for it, than as a diplomat for it. And in that regard, I think he's doing a decent job.

 

[humanino]

There is a fundamental conflict between organized religion and science.

I am a scientist and I should say that I don't feel comfortable with this idea. There should not be a conflict because they play in different leagues. If there were a conflict, religion can only fail miserably, be crushed, swept away and forgotten. If you have a religion then you should face this. Religious conceptions must adapt and transform as we understand the world out there better. And in fact, it appears over the centuries that they do !

 

[Dr.D]

Ghost803 said "There is a fundamental conflict between organized religion and science. One props up tradition and superstition, while the other chips away ignorance that is the base of those beliefs."

This is not really so. They deal with entirely different matters, and there is no conflict at all. It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

 

[turbo]

Ghost803 said "There is a fundamental conflict between organized religion and science. One props up tradition and superstition, while the other chips away ignorance that is the base of those beliefs."

This is not really so. They deal with entirely different matters, and there is no conflict at all. It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

Let's ratchet things back a bit, here. We got the decimal numerical systems from the Arabs, and various Arabic/North African influences fostered the study of astronomy and other sciences. Religion and science are not antithetical, though radicals promoting fundamentalist beliefs can sure make it seem that way.

 

[NeoDevin]

Religious conceptions must adapt and transform as we understand the world out there better. And in fact, it appears over the centuries that they do !

That's why we have evolution deniers?

 

[humanino]

That's why we have evolution deniers?

Are you trying to deny my theory by using the exact same method ?

 

[Evo]

It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

?? What scientific revolution was that? And, yes, you need to post a credible source for your comment.

 

[Dr.D]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

 

[mheslep]

I think a better paraphrase of his ideas would be "Science is the one source of knowledge"

That would indeed be a dispassionate summary. Again, Dawkins is not. IMO he has substituted self worship for the worship of the super natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU"
Neil deGrasse to Dawkins, after a typical Dawkins diatribe:
"You are a professor of the public understanding of science, not a professor of delivering truth to the public. These are two different exercises."

Dawkins in reply (paraphrasing another):
"Science is interesting, if you don't agree you can **** off"

 

[humanino]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

The fact that you are aware only of one culture does not mean other ones contributed nothing. What would Newton have done without the zero ?

 

[Evo]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

And they were part of a "Christian" science revolution how? What exactly are you saying Christian churches did to influence the research of these people? And you need to furnish the reference to back yourself up.

 

[superwolf]

I thought religion wasn't allowed to discuss here. Anyway, Dawkins is right as always.

 

[humanino]

I thought religion wasn't allowed to discuss here.

There is a difference between a religious discussion and a discussion about religion. There are often discussion about science too.

 

[Ghost803]

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

They built on the founding of countless other before them... And how many of them do you want to bet came from pagan backgrounds in Greece, Egypt, etc...And I have the same question as Evo, how did the Churches or temples ever influence what these people did in their field?

 

[arildno]

This isn't an altogether outrageous idea. Stoicism, which took root in the Hellenistic period, is based on the idea of eliminating 'emotion' (thought to be unwanted movements of the mind) from all decisions-forgive me for what may be a poor job in describing the stoicism movement, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/. Although today ideas have changed, it is generally understood that "too much passion" is a bad thing.

Yawn.
You are pre-supposing what you were to prove, by using the qualifier "too much".

Self-evidently, "too much" of anything is, indeed, "too much".

What you SHOULD do, is to delineate where the line between "much, but appropriate" and "too much" is to be drawn.

 

[Focus]

This is not really so. They deal with entirely different matters, and there is no conflict at all. It was the Christian world view that enabled the scientific revolution to occur in Europe, a worldview that says that nature is stable and knowable.

Evo, I am speaking of Kepler, Newton, et. al. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

I feel this is mixing correlation with causation. Just because many of those great scientists were Christians doesn't mean being Christian made them great. They all had long hair too but you don't hear me saying it was the view behind the long hair that caused them to accomplish great achievements.

 

[arunma]

I feel this is mixing correlation with causation. Just because many of those great scientists were Christians doesn't mean being Christian made them great. They all had long hair too but you don't hear me saying it was the view behind the long hair that caused them to accomplish great achievements.

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations. Newton in particular gave God credit for constructing the universe that he studied. A cursory investigation on Wikipedia will show the following assessment:

Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."​

As regards religion, Newton clearly saw science as descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Now, does this demonstrate that being a Christian made Newton a good scientist? It does not. In fact the article also says that Newton was a heretic. However, I cite this to call attention to the fact that many scientists, as well as people on this very forum, seem to tacitly believe that atheism breeds good science. In the past, I've even encountered atheists with no scientific education who think that they understand science simply by virtue of the fact that they are atheists. Forgive my arrogance, but I think that my four years of undergraduate physics, two years of graduate physics, and four years of physics research probably gives me a better scientific understanding than some guy with an American Atheists clubcard.

It has been pointed out that most scientists today are not very religious. This is true, as those of us who work in physics departments can readily testify. However, the existence of religious scientists (of all religious affiliations) makes it difficult to argue that their is any causality between atheism and good science. Much credence has been given to Richard Dawkins, who seems to circumvent logic and claim otherwise. Insodoing, he actually discards the very scientific method that he appears to uphold. I want people here to consider carefully what they are saying. Richard Dawkins is basically the Ann Coulter of atheism. He issues emotionally charged arguments and employs childish, schoolyard taunts. I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a moron (no, that wasn't a schoolyard taunt). I would apply the same logic and state that Richard Dawkins is also a moron.

Are you offended? Is it because Richard Dawkins expresses an opinion that you happen to agree with? If so, then maybe those who love Dawkins and claim to believe in the scientific method should see if they are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

 

[BobG]

Many of these people cited God as their chief inspiration for their scientific investigations. Newton in particular gave God credit for constructing the universe that he studied. ...

Now, does this demonstrate that being a Christian made Newton a good scientist? It does not. In fact the article also says that Newton was a heretic. However, I cite this to call attention to the fact that many scientists, as well as people on this very forum, seem to tacitly believe that atheism breeds good science. ...

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

 

[arunma]

Funding makes good science.

It's probably not fair to call any particular past scientist's or mathematician's religious beliefs into question, but sources of funding for education and science probably have at least a little to do with atheism being more prevalent among scientists today than it was in the past.

Not sure I understand what you mean here (I have some ideas, but I don't like to speculate). Perhaps you could elaborate?