"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"
by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
( 2009, Basic Books ) ...
This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,
if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism
and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "
Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.
There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.
In PART, yes ...
Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,
Rick Dawkins, et al.
ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..
Falwell, certainly, but professor Dawkins is exactly the opposite of Falwellm and he has done an enormous job of promoting science and scientific understandings of issues. You'd know that if ever read any of his books.
Ironicaly,
BOTH Imagine(d)
that they were doing a SUPERB Job
of teaching REAL Science,
but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT
by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility
of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...
Richard Dawkins is a real scientist and a very compassionate, ethical and decent human being. He is a great thinker and has made a significant contribution to discussions on a range of subjects in both educational institutions and in public. His books have informed, educated and raised the consciousnesses of millions of people in various areas. Richard Dawkins is a humanist and a humanitarian - these qualities come through in all his written works.
Jerry Falwell was a crazed bigot. His ideas and beliefs were on a par with those of the Taliban. He did a great deal of damage to the reputation of Christianity througout the world.
The natural sciences, over the last few centuries, have slowly but surely marginalised theists' concepts of god. That is a fact.
Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.
Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.
Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.
I would love for people to know what I know. I'm just not certain if I would like them to find out how I found out.
Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.
Only in the sense that Falwell claimed to speak to the absolute moral issues for all Christians. But even some Christians thought poorly of him. So something was wrong somehow.
Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.
I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me. What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.
Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.
The difference is that Dawkins has valid claims and valid arguments. Falwell never did.
I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me. What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.
You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.
I would love for people to know what I know. I'm just not certain if I would like them to find out how I found out.
You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.
If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway. The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know. And for the record, belief is not knowledge.
You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.
If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway. The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know. And for the record, belief is not knowledge.
"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"
by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
( 2009, Basic Books ) ...
This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,
if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism
and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "
Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.
There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.
In PART, yes ...
Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,
Rick Dawkins, et al.
ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..
Ironicaly,
BOTH Imagine(d)
that they were doing a SUPERB Job
of teaching REAL Science,
but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT
by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility
of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...
Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.
Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.
Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.
science writers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue
that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens
The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem. Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.
"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"
by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
( 2009, Basic Books ) ...
This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,
if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism
and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "
Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.
There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.
In PART, yes ...
Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,
Rick Dawkins, et al.
ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..
Ironicaly,
BOTH Imagine(d)
that they were doing a SUPERB Job
of teaching REAL Science,
but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT
by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility
of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...
Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.
Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.
Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.
I agree ...
It has LONG been my Observation
that there is NO Conflict
between GOOD Science
and GENUINE Faith ...
You're observation is wrong or highly coloured by your prejudices.
Science damages theology. It has done so for several centuries.
science writers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue
that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens
The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem. Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.
"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"
by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
( 2009, Basic Books ) ...
This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,
if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism
and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "
Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.
There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.
In PART, yes ...
Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,
Rick Dawkins, et al.
ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..
Ironicaly,
BOTH Imagine(d)
that they were doing a SUPERB Job
of teaching REAL Science,
but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT
by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility
of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...
Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.
Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.
Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.
I agree ...
It has LONG been my Observation
that there is NO Conflict
between GOOD Science
and GENUINE Faith ...
You're observation is wrong or highly coloured by your prejudices.
Science damages theology. It has done so for several centuries.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
