“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 daughter of an atheist, Michael A. Newdow, attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, where teachers started school days by leading students in a voluntary narration of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge included the phrase “under God”, which was added to it in 1994 through a Congressional act. The atheist sued the school district in federal district court in the state on the basis that making students listen to the phrase even if they were not willing to participate was an infringement on the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He had argued that his right to influence the religious views of his daugh...
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.
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
Wellman, Jack. "Teaching Intelligent Design Is Not a Separation of Church and State." Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Elm4you, 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
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.
Hitchens, Christopher. "An Atheist Responds." The Washington Post. N.p., 15 July 2007. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.
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.
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.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
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
The theory of evolution is often taught in the public school textbooks. It is widely felt that evolution is an attempt to completely remove God from all aspects of creation. Evolution destroys all meaning, purpose, direction, justice and hope in life. “You came from nothing, you are going nowhere, life is meaningless!” The Bible says in Psalm 14:1: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.” Secular schools attempts to erase God from the classroom and from the minds of the next generation by eliminating the Bible as the basis for all knowledge. They pontificate to students and do not allow them the freedom to use their faith-based foundations to express their understanding without being stifled for not being politically correct.
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...
Some feel that scientist are atheists. Some scientists say we still believe in God. St. Thomas answers some questions about faith and science and why faith cannot be tested by the rules of science. In obj.4 he says, “ Because the object of science is something seen, whereas the object of faith is the unseen, as stated above”(258). What he is saying is science is something that has to be seen and proven whereas faith is something as unseen and relies solely on an individual 's beliefs. St. Thomas also says, “ In like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man even in the state of wayfarer, is , for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration”(258). Meaning that what one person sees as scientific and fact, can appear to another man as just another sign of faith, faith has no bounds whereas science has boundaries and