I will say I believe that any devout religiosity brings with it a smaller likelihood that those people will bring forward great advancements. It simply stops being their goal, at least in modern times. The believe that God created everything and pulls the strings in life, that type of thinking is incongruous with trying to learn and create, especially in the sciences. I worked very closely with John, a very devout Chinese Baptist. He had his PhD and had worked in my field for 12 years. He was wonderful at being given tasks to complete or experiments to run. But when we were in lab meetings, he was completely devoid of deep understanding of the complexities that he was dealing with on a daily basis. He never actually came up with fresh experiments that were well aligned with our hypothesis. I, a lowly lab tech, came up with more new experiments that were put into play than John. John and I had some wonderful conversations about god, religion, I even came with him on a couple of special occasions to his church and had a great time (once for Chinese New Year and another time to see John sing in church choir). When we would just talk, he seemed to be missing that love of exploration that many non-believers have. And he also saw how science worked through the lens of someone who believed in the bible and the two just don't match up. I will say one thing, he was happier than me. He would never harm a soul, he was very giving and is a friend I plan to visit next time i'm in Boston (where he works now).
Many religious people have spearheaded huge advancements in science. One example is the creator of the Big Bang. Evolution was created by a religious man. I can understand that many in modern science may frown upon a theist; but saying that science and theism aren't compatible is very generalized and just wrong.
The sidebar to the so-called controversial comments is the tendency for people to shout "racism!" whenever Islam is criticized. This is a discussion that Dawkins has intentionally spurred. Also, if we're looking to be offended, MarAzul's comment about wait until they get at him and how funny that will be comment is the worst. How's Salman Rushdie faring?
I should note that while I admire Dr. Dawkins and find his books to be pretty wonderful I don't love his Twitter persona. Sometimes I wonder if it's really him. Not nearly as refined as his interviews and public appearances. Sam Harris seems to handle Twitter with less snark.
Or maybe its Dawkins should be smarter than to generalize an entire philosophy based on a minuscule baseline. I mean this guy is supposed to be a "out of the box thinker"; yet that statement was very closed minded.
[video=youtube;fDAT98eEN5Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q&feature=youtu.be&t=6m40s[/video]
Here is a list Denny just posted. They are still Islamic and hold very prestigious positions in the field of science. I don't understand how you assume negatively generalizing a culture like Dawkins is completely baseless? Makes no sense
I think a representative anecdote. Most of the people up here are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, some religion, but very few are orthodox in their views. I don't think its a case of the scientific community looking down on them, I think it's people in a frame of mind that is incongruous with scientific inquiry. There are levels of religiosity, using restaurant talk, mild to very spicy. As the devotion to the religion increases, the ability to trust only the science dictates goes out the window. Now, it's how god fits into the situation, it's what the science should say to match with god. And yes, there is a very real case of people in academia looking down on the devout. But I don't think that's the cause. I admit it's real, but I don't think its as gross as people imagine. At least around me, first hand.
If you reread my posts, I am quite aware that most advances are by the religious. I am making a distinction between levels of religious activism or belief. The most religious will likely be clergy, going down, little by little, eventually to some putz on the street with a tattoo of a cross and no idea what the bible actually says. \ But mainly I am not making a claim as much as exploring this topic. Speaking my mind but ready to change it. I already have once in this thread.
I do, but not as much as my writing makes it seem. I really do like the guy and respect the man, I simply think his scientific mind is hazy or lazy, one of the two. And for someone who has had the vast education he has had, I would expect more in that realm. I would rather spend the day with John, break bread with John, than a huge portion of people up here who have a more scientific mind. I am looking down on an ability of John more than actually looking down on John. But part of that is due to me actually knowing John very well. I do admit I am most certainly biased when first I meet a devoutly religious person. But I look down on most people in some way. I'm an asshole. This must be understood. I think I'm better than you Denny, I think I'm better most people. Actually, that's not quite true, I oscillate between pride and shame rapidly and in truth have low self esteem. I was mainly saying that stuff with a bit of rye wit. But I look down on some, and some people look down on me, that's natural, I'm just saying that there is an image that the "looking down" is much greater than it is. I give people respect and a chance to wow me regardless of their background.
In the relatively few tweets he made the point was that zealotry stifled the progress of an ingenious people. He used the science Nobel's point to illustrate what he was saying. If you want to ascribe an overarching disapproval of all Muslim people and not on the effect the religion had on their scientific progress that's your prerogative. Part of his comments stem from constantly having to deal with people telling him how many billions of Muslims there are as if that were an argument for the veracity of the religion.
