Andrew Brown criticises Dawkins in the Guardian


What's this idiot Brown's issue here? I really can't see where Dawkins is being hypocritical, nor where he's "ram[ming] his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly".

In fact, I get Dawkins' point absolutely...

I recently had reason to accompany my partner to medical consultations with an eminent specialist professor in his field. His staff were often milling about, and occasionally during these visits one of them would see to my partner rather than the professor. On one occasion, I noticed one of the staff wearing a kippah and it sparked a massive internal dilemma: Would I/we refuse to be treated or diagnosed by someone who believes in the supernatural? Can someone who believes in magic be trusted to be medically competent? How many other medical professionals are just as devout but give no visual clue?

We both would have probably hung on in quiet desparation in the English way and said nothing, but during that visit we were lucky enough to see the professor himself.

It boils down to my having an innate distrust of people who exhibit religious leanings (or at least having doubts about their mental competency). How can I expect a person who believes in talking snakes and magic gardens to embrace the science of neurology properly? How can the New Statesman expect a person who believes in magical winged horses and cloud-gardens write sensibly about current affairs?

Views: 180

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

On the whole, I agree.

But there is no islamic or christian dogma about whether or not a god takes an interest in the health of your car, and no religious teachings about the best way to tighten nuts or which hand to use for a spanner. There is however loads of crap written about how deserving you are of disease and suffering and how best to look after certain parts of your body.

You can pretty much guarantee a religious mechanic won't be swayed by dogma or superstition when he's changing your oil, but how can you be sure a religious doctor will be a doctor first and a religiot second?

That's the way I look at it Kev.  I changed doctors a few months ago because the old one said that science will never figure-out the brain because that is the province of god.

I feel it should be pointed out that Islam particually can easily be argued to be both for peace and for war.  The reason that those on both sides of the issue have so many quotes to draw upon is because the Koran moves from one to the other, somtimes as quickly as one sentence.  I suggest all of you visit this website and read all three books there.  You are all likely too busy to actually do this, as it is my hobby i do this during my free time but I doubt you will all find it as interesting.  Still I think even light reading can be of great benefit.

Thanks Travis. I'm going to check it out.

I get a lot of guff when discussing Islam due to my calling it chaotic. This is exactly what i've been trying to point out. I don't know how anyone can buy into a religion that speaks out of both sides of its mouth.

Just today, while reading an article about the Boston bombing there was a woman in Chechnya who said killing a non-muslim is like killing all of humanity and killing a muslim is like killing the whole world.

'k, now let's go to the next page...


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service