“Science proves religious people are stupid and atheists are smart.” This is a somewhat provocative title pulled from an article on a small blog called “The Moral Minefield,” run by a group of Graduate Theological Union students and graduates (Green). This statement is exactly the kind of thing, however, that one would expect Richard Dawkins to wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, he seems to imply this sentiment throughout the entirety of his speech titled, “Militant Atheism.” Just as Dawkins believes the creationist argument can be boiled down to one simple idea, so too can his argument; atheists are superior to religious people and there needs to be an atheist social movement to give them the equality they deserve. His speech may seem a …show more content…
If viewed from the perspective of faith, Dawkins’ argument most likely seems offensive and his conclusions, (atheists are intellectually superior to religious people), false. If viewed from an atheist perspective, however, Dawkins’ argument is completely effective, and Dawkins himself would appear witty, clever, and engaging. Some might wonder why Dawkins takes such an aggressive approach. After all wouldn’t his argument be more universal if he was less dismissive of religion or condescending toward religious people? While making these changes would probably make him a more likable speaker, Dawkins’ intent is not to appear likable, nor is it to convince religious people of the superiority of his atheism. Dawkins’ aim is to inspire his fellow atheists to make a name for themselves; to make it no longer so that the people who are best suited for political office have to lie about their beliefs to get elected. He does not concern himself with the opinions of religious people. After all, they are not his audience, not even the ones who were actually present to hear him speak. He probably does not even believe they have the capacity to grasp the point of what he is saying. Therefore, Dawkins’ rhetoric ultimately strengthens his argument because it makes his argument more compelling to his intended audience. He is somewhat of a caricature artist, making exaggerations about both religious people and atheists to make his argument more favorable to his audience. That his argument, by stressing some of the less evidence-driven, more faith based, parts of religious faith, happens to offend religious people is an unimportant side-effect. His intention is to encourage atheists to stop being pushed aside by religious people by saying, “Look how much smarter you are than them, isn’t it right you should have a greater say in
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Berlinski opens up by giving an introduction to the scientism of the new atheists and presents his own critique on a common slogan of the party: religion as a primary cause of evil in the world. Berlinski explains that the issues atheism has caused in the world cannot be ignored. Fundamentally because what atheistic regimes did not believe is more important than what they did believe in. Therefore, this is the real cause of many twentieth century problems. Berlinski explains: “What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks di...
... we choose to live our lives. I do not think that McCloskey gave a convincing argument that would truly persuade someone to become atheist over theist. All theories of evolution are just that, theories. Even though we have the bible that is documented evidence for theist, there will still be questions and doubt. Without hard proof on either side, it really is up to each individual person on what they choose to believe
Ruse, Michael. "Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in Religion Classes, Not Science." Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Rpt. from "Keep Intelligent Design Out of Science Classes." beliefnet.com. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 May. 2014.
To be honest with you I think some of McCloskey questions of the existence of God are based and as a Christian I know I have questioned the existence of God at one point in my life. I had to really learn the hard way. From the article one can see that McCloskey is trying very hard to dismiss every claim of the theistic view. From the videos on blackboard, when someone decides to prove something or someone, then that means there is certainty and assurance that thing is absolutely true. The truth of the matter is that we cannot prove one hundred percent of the existence of God and that is why an Atheist like McCloskey would say that without evidence then there is no God. McCloskey try’s his best to scientifically prove that the creation of the universe therefore claiming the inexistence of God. The world that we live in is so complex that I do not think an ordinary human mind can try in his or her might to break down and understand how the world came about. From McCloskey’s perspective, the fact that the world just exist is not enough evidence or proof for people to think or assure that there is a supreme being who controls and creates the universe.
Wellman, Jack. "Teaching Intelligent Design Is Not a Separation of Church and State." Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Elm4you, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Hitchens, Christopher. "An Atheist Responds." The Washington Post. N.p., 15 July 2007. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.
In 2004, Sharpes and Peramas report that “nearly two-thirds of all Americans surveyed favored teaching creationism together with evolution in schools,” according to a poll organized by CBS Broadcasting (qtd. in Costley and Killins). Thus, it seems as if the public has bought into the fair play argument proposed by creationists. After all, why not have a place to teach equally credible theories of the origin of life in schools? (Eldredge 634). Chet Raymo, a noted science professor of physics and astronomy at Stonehill College, rejects this notion, stating, “one might as well give equal billing to those who believe the Earth is flat” since creationism stands on little factual ground (156). At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates that teaching creationism puts pressure on minorities to conform to the obviously favored religion when the power of the government backs up the theory (qtd. in Anti-Defamation League ...
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.”
...empt to impute the difficulty of imagining evolutionary pathways to the critic. The only difference is that Dawkins' version is more aggressively ad hominem. However, the fault does not lie in the critic but in the Continuum Argument. It is not the critic's job to imagine evolutionary pathways; it is the believer's job to demonstrate them without resorting to just-so stories. The philosopher David Hume once argued that we can imagine rabbits coming into existence out of nowhere, and he concluded from this that there is nothing contradictory in the notion that something can come from nothing. Now we certainly can form a mental image of rabbits coming from nowhere, as we can for the transformation of a lensless eye to a lensed eye or a steam engine to a warp engine, but we are not obliged to accept a necessary connection between our mental images and external reality.
In the article “On Being an Atheist” by H. J McCloskey, he tried to reason why atheism is a much more comfortable belief then Christianity. It would seem as if McCloskey grounds for his belief has little to no proof. McCloskey argues that his indisputable view given by the cosmological proof, that talks about God being perfect and powerful cannot help being solved the problem about the existence of God. Although he believes that the proofs do not provide a valid proof for the existence of God, but there is a need to provide the causes of all the existence things in the world. Mr. McCloskey reasoned against three theistic proofs, the cosmological argument, theological argument and the argument from design. These three arguments that he
Evolution and Intelligent Design being taught in public schools is a growing controversy. Both supporters and augmenters have been clashing over different perspectives on wither intelligent design should replace evolution as part of the scientific curriculum. The controversy has lead to multiple court cases and religious dispute. The main issue when it comes to teaching this idea of science in our schools is the idea of conforming to an idea without solid evidence. Students whom are required to learn intelligent design rather than Darwin’s idea of evolution will be directly confronted on their moral and religious beliefs. In addition, students will develop a less understanding of science.
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
“We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don’t believe. It’s an assumption with a long history in philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate of atheism” (Gray 1). Science has given us many benefits, so many that it would be hard just to name them. The only problem is science can’t save the human species from itself. Science inquiry is probably one of the best methods we have today for figuring out how the world works. “As of now, we know a lot more than we ever have and what we know will only increase as time goes by, actually if we know anything it’s that our current theories are filled with errors and that we will still continue to use those theories to until we find a better alternative” (Grey 1) Science isn’t about belief anymore then religion is. “Religion is then not fundamentally different from science; both are like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there’s no longer any need for religion” (Grey 1). If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is just a bunch of gathering myths. Point intended you don’t have to believe a theory is true in order to use it. Just like you don’t have to believe a story is true for it to give a special meaning to your life. In other words, to believe in religion and to have faith in the things that you can’t see is completely up to you. Precisely, religion is a powerful tool for peace and enlightenment, but a negative tool when used for manipulation. To achieve peace, we must first submit to the unknown, and eliminate all negative intentions through religion. Religion not only affects someone’s way of thinking, but it affects our decision making ability and exactly how we choose to make that decision. In addition, you can relate the way religion is used in novels and the way