[Closed] Richard Dawkins reads STW forum shocker!!

but you'd have to prove the Pope was aware of it. Was he? I don't know.

Maybe do a bit more reading on a topic if you are going to go on about it with such vehemence - if you even bother to read this while thread you will see that the pope personally intervened to prevent the defrocking of a known child abuser. And that's just one example.

[img] [/img]

but you'd have to prove the Pope was aware of it. Was he? I don't know.

It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

here have some more facts

the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world

Oi! Young Junkyard... Dont you come on here with your fancy new fangled "facts"

dont think it makes him any more of a money grabber than the ones in the fancy dress. At least as a tax payer I get to choose if I line his pockets, unlike the church!

I agree. Therefore I don't distinguish him from any of the other collection-tin rattlers...

Maybe do a bit more reading on a topic if you are going to go on about it with such vehemence - if you even bother to read this while thread you will see that the pope personally intervened to prevent the defrocking of a known child abuser. And that's just one example.

I'm sure there are lots of others, too. This particular one, the 'crime' (other than the abuse) was to not act against the abuser, as he'd 'repented'. Now, forgetting 'legality', Catholicism offers 'sinners' the chance to repent, and priests are afforded the power of absolution to those who 'repent'. So, it could be argued that the Catholic Church dealt with the matter according to it's own doctrine. That this clearly conflicts with modern secular Law, is neither here nor there. That was not the concern of the Church, as they believe their 'law' is divine, and therefore higher than any other. Personally, I don't agree at all with the decision not to take acton; this evil man got away with his terrible crimes. But, Ratzinger etc 'believed' they were doing the right thing for the good of the Catholic Church,something they felt was more important than bringing justice to those who were abused, or their abuser. As for suggesting that Ratzinger was complicit in the abuse; I understand this decision came many years after the offences took place, when Father Murphy was no longer officiating. Also guilty of not dealing with this are the police and courts, who took no action against this man.

A nasty, horrible mess. I suspect the Church wanted to just brush this under the carpet, much the same way a company might try to cover up an industrial accident that might cause damage to their stock's worth. Despicable.

As before; I am in no way condoning the actions of the Vatican, the Pope or anyone else who's covered up child abuse

But I fail to see how the current actions of Dawkins can help bring justice to those abused, or prevent such abuses from taking place in the future. Dawkins just wants Atheism to triumph over the Church. so he can have his little 'moment of glory'.

Talkemada - Member

Have a look at this, and tell me it's not all about publicity and money...

http://richarddawkins.net/

Oh, O.K.

"It's not all about publicity and money".

Oi! Young Junkyard... Dont you come on here with your fancy new fangled "facts"

i know they have no place in STW debates Sorry I will go and sit on the naught step [ Bike radar?]

Now, forgetting 'legality', Catholicism offers 'sinners' the chance to repent, and priests are afforded the power of absolution to those who 'repent'. So, it could be argued that the Catholic Church death with the matter according to it's own doctrine. That this clearly conflicts with modern secular Law, is neither here nor there.

What a load of bollocks. How is it 'neither here not there' exactly? Can't believe you've dared show your face in this thread again tbh.

How is it 'neither here not there' exactly?

From the perspective of a Catholic.

I'm not defending it. I'm just trying to understand why these people made such decisions. I don't agree with them at all.

From the perspective of a Catholic.

Dunno, plenty of Catholics seem to be pretty pissed off about it.

Maybe all paedophiles could point to the doctrine of NAMBLA and claim they don't have to be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

Jeeze, Grum; I'm not defending the Church over this, ffs. It's a disgrace. I'm merely trying to understand why the pious would cover up such horrific acts. And as I've said, it's because they felt that the 'damage' caused by such truths becoming public knowledge would seriously undermine the Catholic Church. Wrongly, they [i]believed[/i] they were doing the right thing. They acted according to their doctrine. To them, their doctrine supersedes any other laws. And now, they're attempting to appease people by issuing 'apologies'.

The defence of Dawkins, that he is 'helping highlight' these issues by organising a publicity stunt, is rubbish. He's out for his own ends, any open minded person can see that. As I've said, if he were that concerned about highlighting child abuse, he could be doing that in a far more effective way, without getting his face in the papers, or doing numerous television interviews etc.

It's the hijacking of the issue of child abuse, to line your own pockets, that I find disgusting.

AdamW - Member

that book he wrote that went to the top of the book charts. What was it again - oh yes - "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution". Which is about biological evolution. Strange that with him being a scientist in that field.

Dawkins credibilty as an academic scientist was snuffed out long ago.
He hasn't published anything 'scientific' for nearly 20 years and has always favoured the medium of 'popular best seller' or 'coffee table supplement' over the learned journal.

That this clearly conflicts with modern secular Law, is neither here nor there.

He's out for his own ends, any open minded person can see that

As I've said, if he were that concerned about highlighting child abuse, he could be doing that in a far more effective way

Yes but he isn't concerned about highlighting child abuse, is he?

He is concerned about religion in modern society, particularly when it thinks itself above the common law or exempt from scrutiny.

GrahamS - Nail/head

Dawkins credibilty as an academic scientist was snuffed out long ago

I think it does have considerable significance especially as the only law applicable in this country is secular law and it is applied universally to all ..... we are all equal in its eyes.

Doesn't apply in the Vatican, though, does it?

The question here is wether or not the Pope has committed a 'crime' according to International Law. I'd say there's a strong possibility, as surely not reporting child abuse is a criminal act? The fact that Father Murphy was not arrested and tried for his crimes makes this all the more difficult. In fact, I suppose technically we should say that his 'alleged crimes', although it seems clear from the accounts of his victims and indeed his own 'repentance' that he was guilty.

Without any form of conviction of Father Murphy, to 'prove' the Pope is guilty of any crime is going to be bloody difficult in Law, even if we're all pretty convinced he is. See the problem here?

When you add international Diplomacy, and the chaos that would undoubtedly erupt if the Pope were to be arrested on British soil, this whole matter becomes very unpleasant and unpalatable indeed. Such an event could trigger nutters blowing up innocent people, or similar nastiness.

So, any Judge considering an arrest warrant, would have to consider all this. And no doubt the Government will be leaning on them very heavily, to arrive at the 'right' decision.

Personally, I can't see this happening at all. I doubt any judge would be willing to risk their career to even consider it. It's not a perfect World.

Besides, it's not just the Pope, is it? How many others are complicit in the cover up? How far do you go? And why stop at the Catholic Church?

Meanwhile, children all over the World continue to be abused, while those with power and influence strut around like cocks. 🙁

Yes but he isn't concerned about highlighting child abuse, is he?

What I've been saying all along. He's religion bashing once again. This situation is a nice, easy and convenient way for him to have another dig. Inappropriate.

In a recently previous life, Richard was holder of the "The Simonyi Professorship Chair for the [i]Public Understanding of Science[/i]".

Seems to me he's decided to carry on that role since formally retiring from the post. "Popularising" science by means of publishing abstruse academic papers looks like a bit of a non-starter to me. Better to distill all that information into a form with which the non-academic rest of us can at least get to grips, surely?

It also seems to me, his sense of personal outrage (to which - living in the West - he is entitled, being free from the fear of burning at the stake, or having his head chopped off) at organised religion's attempt to drag us all back to pre-enlightenment ignorance is a natural, unpremeditated act that started with the attempt to authorise the assassination of Salman Rushdie and developed through "9/11" and other more recent similar acts of religious barbarism.

That he has chosen to pursue his case armed with the tools of fame and his communicative skills, contacts and talent for debunking is completely fine as far as I am concerned.

I think some here are suffering from the age-old miserable English disease of not liking people who are "uppity" or "above themselves", preferring the usual servile stance of bowing the knee before the likes of royalty, religions and other examples of the dressing up in party costumes and the wearing of silly pointed hats.

This situation is a nice, easy and convenient way for him to have another dig. Inappropriate.

It's entirely appropriate - the problem here is that the church seems to be able to operate under a different set of rules to other organisations.

Junkyard - Member
yes that is correct the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science chaired in the University of Oxford had no credibility at all

From which he 'retired' in 2008 !

"Professor Jonathan Michie, Director of Oxford University’s Department for Continuing Education, said: ‘We are delighted that Professor Marcus du Sautoy has accepted this post, [b]which marks a new direction for the Simonyi Chair.[/b] He is the ideal person to develop Oxford’s science activities for the public [b]given his world-class reputation for research.[/b]"

Bold highlights added by me to emphasise the subtle but unmistakable comment that Squawkins did not have a world-class reputation for research

Bold text added by mne

To emphasise a non-point uncontained in the quote.

Doesn't apply in the Vatican, though, does it?

Ok, I'm done here. This is now descending into the usual 'religion is crap' nonsense, so I can't be bothered continuing. Basically, I'm right, though; Dawkins is using the issue of child-abuse to gain publicity for his own 'Crusade'... 🙄

He could, of course, and frequently does, use any other aspect of religion to try to argue his case; it's just that the issue of child abuse if far more highly emotive than many other topics, and this situation was like a red rag to a bull. I bet he was rubbing his greedy little hands together in glee, when this story first broke. 🙁

Talkemada - Member

Ok, I'm done here. This is now descending into the usual 'religion is crap' nonsense, so I can't be bothered continuing. Basically, I'm right, though; Dawkins is using the issue of child-abuse to gain publicity for his own 'Crusade'.

Yes. So you keep saying, without responding to the counter-argument.

And anyway, so what if it IS his "personal crusade" (which it isn't there are many others involved). What difference does that make to it's value?

Galileo's insistence that the earth is not the centre of the universe, was a "personal crusade". It was true, and he was punished by the catholic church for it, if you recall. An act for which they still have not apologised.

Richard, "rubbing his hands" about child abuse, earlier:

Basically, I'm right, though

This seems more like people are defending Dawkins than attacking religion to me FWIW

I bet he was rubbing his greedy little hands together in glee, when this story first broke.

That miserable little comment says more about you, than it does about him.

Dawkins is using the issue of child-abuse to gain publicity for his own 'Crusade'...

Which is entirely appropriate.

As an analogy, let's say you were a well-known campaigner for greater scrutiny and transparency in the dealings of MPs. If you popped up and tried to get a dishonest MP arrested during "the great expenses scandal" then would should people think that is just you self publicising??

Or would it in fact be you highlighting an example of exactly the kind of thing that happens when the scrutiny and transparency are replaced by deference and secrecy?

Mr Woppit - Member
I think some here are suffering from the age-old miserable English disease of not liking people who are "uppity" or "above themselves"

Not at all 😉
just wryly amused that someone who likes to argue form the 'hard scientist' stance has actually contributed far less to the scientific community than to his personal wealth and celebrity status.

Perhaps, but he has contributed far more to the [b]public[/b] understanding of his chosen field than pretty much anyone bar Darwin.

hilldodger - Member

Mr Woppit - Member
I think some here are suffering from the age-old miserable English disease of not liking people who are "uppity" or "above themselves"

Not at all
just wryly amused that someone who likes to argue form the 'hard scientist' stance has actually contributed far less to the scientific community than to his personal wealth and celebrity status.

Funny how you thought that remark was directed at you, then...

Funny how you thought that remark was directed at you, then...

Is it ?
Oh well, glad to bring a ray of God's happy sunshine into your life 😉

GrahamS - Member
Perhaps, but he has contributed far more to the public understanding of his chosen field than pretty much anyone bar Darwin.

No, he's done more to bring his own particular interpretation of someone elses idea's to the public attention.

That's the trouble with 'best selling popular science books' - they ususally only give the opinions of that particular best selling popular science writer.

If you want a scientist who's really contributed to modern understanding of evolution/speciation try Steven J Gould......

Basically, I'm right, though

Yes you have persuaded me with your powerful use of logic and reason.

try Steven J Gould

I'm willing to wager that more of the general public have heard of Dawkins and read one of his books.

I'm not sure Gould is that much better than Dawkins, Hilldodger. They both seem to have got into a bit of a overhyped, self-publicised battle over who was 'the true heir to Darwin'.
Though I'll credit Gould (a paleontologist) with a slightly better understanding of paleontology than Dawkins (an ethologist).
However as Gould is dead and Dawkins isn't, can we take it that God has had his say about who is the winner? 😉

no god decided which one they did not want with them for as long as possible clearly.
Yes few will have read Gould and their spat was both vitiolic and childish.

That's the trouble with 'best selling popular science books' - they ususally only give the opinions of that particular best selling popular science writer

Stephen J Gould - inventor of the "Non-Overlapping Magisterium" or "NOMA".

The idea that religion and science are seperate and cannot comment on each other.

Dawkins, from "The God Delusion":

"(Quoting Gould:) "The net, or magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honoured guest and science must respectfully slink away?

Martin Rees, the distinguished Cambridge astronomer... 'The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all. Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the province of philosophers and theologians.' I would prefer to say that if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well. I am tempted to go further and wonder in what possible sense theologians can be said to [i]have[/i] a province.In the words of a former head of my Oxford college: 'I have grave doubts as to whether it's a [i]subject[/i] at all'."

Whilst Gould was, of course, a deeply knowleadgable academic on his subject, the idea that religion and it's claims are not open to scientific investigation is cowardly and absurd.

we can all see what Gould was getting at as science does struggle [ at present] to explain say aesthetics, love even the weather actually. Now perhaps with enough data an dknowledge it will not and could answer this but ther ein no evidence to support that position it is an act of faith on the scientific methodology - i also take this leap as it is the most powerful tool we have for knowing the world.
I agree that what is left over is why we have philosophy. Religion can be part of these thought experiments /epitemological warblings if they wish. As long as we all agree we are just spouting hypothetical b0llocks with no evidence either way. Fun, but of little merit beyond intelectual excercise IMHO

Now perhaps with enough data an dknowledge it will not and could answer this but ther ein no evidence to support that position

Excuse me? Have we always been aware that light travels at a finite speed and illness is caused by viruses, not acts of god?

And there was me thinking that "scientific advance" was more than just an empty phrase...

I see no reason why this progress should not continue.

The religious: "We do not know what came before the big bang, therefore it must be god".

The rationalist: "We do not know what came before the big bang. Yet."

Anyway, I sense that the thread is in danger of turning into a repetition of "There's no god"/"Yes there is"/"No there isn't", so I'll just say that I AM looking forward to the furore stirred up by Richard and Chris's lawsuit and await the imminent arrival of further squawing protestations of the Men In Silly Hats as the pips continue to be squeezed... 😈

Ok, I'm done here............................................... Basically, I'm right, though

😆

classic fred

Science hasn't been able to properly explain the Big Bang.

Cos it's bollocks.

Science hasn't been able to properly explain the Big Bang.

Cos it's bollocks.

Science hasn't been able to explain gravity, but you still hit the deck if you trip, and science can tell you exactly how far, how fast and how hard you'll impact 🙂 Religion will just tell you not to trip.

Science hasn't been able to properly explain the Big Bang.

Or Chity Chitty Bang Bang

Come on Dawkins, explain that one.

Science hasn't been able to explain gravity

Must be bollocks then 🙂

Or Chity Chitty Bang Bang

Come on Dawkins, explain that one.