Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' (priest, Christians, choices)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea why you would point that thread out...Be honest mystic, could you live with a person who was constantly condemning you because of your different beliefs?
By the way I was married to a religious woman and there was no conflict in that regard.
I criticize Richard Dawkins over his almost Darth Vader-like hate... however, he receives a lot of hate mail from the religious and they often attempt to give him mental disturbance and physical threats, so I prefer to think he is only talking to them and not to my parents who happen to be unquestioning Christians.
I also criticize him over his science and scientific presentations, his lecture on sexual selection within nature was rather inappropriate for an american audience and portrayed pictures of mostly African people as animals but not pictures of urban Anglo-Saxon people.
He himself was wrong in his original ideas about sexual selection but then became convinced by his student's math and better ideas, so I like his agnosticism and willingness to better his mental schemes.
There are a lot of cards out there that people use to try to win arguments. I agree, too much intensity does not work for most. In my situation when you mention Catholicism almost everybody mentions the "Pedophile" card. Some minorities play the "race" card---and so it goes.
True. In the end one should listen to all the opinions and consider whether they are justified. Higgs may have a valid point. It does not mean that Dawkins has to shut up, but perhaps engage rather than oppose.
I of course, have a lot of time for Dawkins, but I was embarrassed by a clip I saw of him engaging with a Fundamentalist. Instead of discussing the subject, he went straight for the Ad Hom. He is excellent on Biology but some aspects of his discussion technique could do with some honing.
While we're at it, I was surprised to hear that he prefers the 'agnostic' label to 'atheist'. I think he could learn a bit more about atheism, too. Nobody, no matter how much of an authority, or entitled to respect (mine included) is beyond question.
As to the Catholicism thing. The bottom line is whether there is any validity in the God -claim, the line above that is whether there is any validity in the papal authority claim. The various 'cards' played are of greater or lesser validity: cosiness with right - wing regimes, cover -up, doctrinal opposition to certain sexual things.
Just as atheists have to contend with all sorts of cards from Stalin and Pol Pot (1) to 'Darwinist' Eugenics.
Bottom line there is that the accusations about the Church seem to be true, but the ones about atheism are false. Except the one about stridency, perhaps.
(1) Hitler believed in God, of course, and in Christianity (or a Divine Jesus, at least) too, but not in being subservient to the Churches - they, like everyone else, had to be subservient to naziism. If they didn't take snuff from him, they would son be staring through the wire.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-01-2013 at 04:40 AM..
Reason: for editing: Needs it.
True. In the end one should listen to all the opinions and consider whether they are justified. Higgs may have a valid point. It does not mean that Dawkins has to shut up, but perhaps engage rather than oppose.
I of course, have a lot of time for Dawkins, but I was embarrassed by a clip I saw of him engaging with a Fundamentalist. Instead of discussing the subject, he went straight for the Ad Hom. He is excellent on Biology but some aspects of his discussion technique could do with some honing.
While we're at it, I was surprised to hear that he prefers the 'agnostic' label to 'atheist'. I think he could learn a bit more about atheism, too. Nobody, no matter how much of an authority, or entitled to respect (mine included) is beyond question.
As to the Catholicism thing. The bottom line is whether there is any validity in the God -claim, the line above that is whether there is any validity in the papal authority claim. The various 'cards' played are of greater or lesser validity: cosiness with right - wing regimes, cover -up, doctrinal opposition to certain sexual things.
Just as atheists have to contend with all sorts of cards from Stalin and Pol Pot (1) to 'Darwinist' Eugenics.
Bottom line there is that the accusations about the Church seem to be true, but the ones about atheism are false. Except the one about stridency, perhaps.
(1) Hitler believed in God, of course, and in Christianity (or a Divine Jesus, at least) too, but not in being subservient to the Churches - they, like everyone else, had to be subservient to naziism. If they didn't take snuff from him, they would son be staring through the wire.
There is no doubt in my mind that the RCC has been infiltrated by Pedophiles and others that are not truly Holy Men. The RCC needs a better screening process and would do better if priests were allowed to marry.
There is no doubt in my mind that the RCC has been infiltrated by Pedophiles and others that are not truly Holy Men. The RCC needs a better screening process and would do better if priests were allowed to marry.
Ironically there is an elaborate screening process already, in the sense that the training and ordination of priests is encrusted with all sorts of tradition and ritual that was presumably created with god's guidance to, among other things, prevent just such scandals as these. What they need is screening that is empirically valid with goals other than meaningless ones such as "god called him". A better goal would be, "has empathy and compassion, cares about people, is not a pedophile or other type of predator, is honest to an extremely high standard", etc.
And I totally agree that celibate priesthood needs to end. Give priests a socially acceptable outlet for their sexuality, drop the nonsensical subtext that engaging in sex somehow makes you not holy enough for spiritual leadership, and let them gain some practical experience and credibility for better marriage counseling.
Ironically there is an elaborate screening process already, in the sense that the training and ordination of priests is encrusted with all sorts of tradition and ritual that was presumably created with god's guidance to, among other things, prevent just such scandals as these. What they need is screening that is empirically valid with goals other than meaningless ones such as "god called him". A better goal would be, "has empathy and compassion, cares about people, is not a pedophile or other type of predator, is honest to an extremely high standard", etc.
And I totally agree that celibate priesthood needs to end. Give priests a socially acceptable outlet for their sexuality, drop the nonsensical subtext that engaging in sex somehow makes you not holy enough for spiritual leadership, and let them gain some practical experience and credibility for better marriage counseling.
I agree with your entire post, but I must add that the RCC is already very practical in terms of teaching people to be GOOD in the absence of "fear of God". One of the forum atheists went to Catholic schools all his life and as an atheist he was never uncomfortable with such teachings.
However, the RCC is truly immersed in tradition and thrives on tradition and rituals. Some folks still prefer Latin and like the mass with all the bells and whistles of antiquity. I find that those traditions are difficult to leave behind. On a practical level, many Catholics are a bit like the Kennedy family.
There is no doubt in my mind that the RCC has been infiltrated by Pedophiles and others that are not truly Holy Men. The RCC needs a better screening process and would do better if priests were allowed to marry.
That may be the case. Aside from the implication about what God is doing when he should be grassing up the moles in his church, the problem is not how they got into it, but what is being done to get them out of it. Far from enough, was the problem, and has it really been addressed?
However, again somehow we have drifted off fault - finding with atheists to fault - finding with the Vatican.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
