41–50 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Though I'm an atheist, I'd disagree that a good scientist should be agnostic. The reason is segmentation, along with a widespread belief that religious beliefs are beyond measurement in the physical world. That said, I disagree with your assertion that the burden is on science to prove the non-existence of the god(s). In fact, there's a distinction often drawn between "strict" and "soft" (or empirical) atheism. A lot…
Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so catac…
It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect . A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect sc…
Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least.
Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic.
I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that they doesn't quite believe in, as long as they're capable, why stop them? On the other hand, if you can't get a job because you really don't believe in it, aren't there other jobs out there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?
If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.
I have never seen evidence of protests against that kind of discrimination. And considering the are a pseudo-public entity (tax exempt), it seems very similar.
/me is disappointed with self for commenting on stupid flamebait link.
This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…
Basically, why is it okay to reject people based on some beliefs but not others?
This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…
There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?
For a non-moralistic example of this behavior, consider a fat person who wishes to lose weight for the selfish purpose of attracting sexual partners, but is unwilling to put down the bacon. Is this person a fraud when they say people should lose weight?
I have been following astrophysicist Hugh Ross for some time. For a very intelligent exploration of creationist ideas (that very decidedly do not accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old) check out Reasons To Believe: http://www.reasons.org/
I'm reluctant to agree that a website with drivel like "does this synthetic life form point to intelligent agency at every step of the way?" proudly featured on its front page is intelligent.
They may well be intelligent, but that doesn't make them sane.
"I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife." - Godel
Maybe Godel wasn't logical for his beliefs?
"An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God." -Srinivasa Ramanujan
Maybe they shouldn't have invite Ramanujan to work at Cambridge?
I find these thoughts disturbing, to judge someone's potential to contribute based on his religion.
This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…
The article isn't about religion so much as it is about beliefs. Does being a religious belief make a belief better? The current laws seek to protect religious beliefs over non-religious ones. Basically, why is it okay to reject people based on some beliefs but not others?