1. Free Speech

Comment #61126 by StephenS on August 3, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Wow, brilliant speech! I agree with almost all of it. However, the part that seems to strike a wrong note with me is his use of J.S. Mill. It's quite right to say that Mill supported the one man voicing his opinion even if the rest of society dissented, but one of the most important points that Mill made was his Harm Principle.

He gave the example of a corn dealer, who is regarded as a starver of the poor by some people in society. Then, he gave two options: a disillusioned individual doing an "instigation of a mischievous act" by giving an impassioned speech to an angry mob, who would then burn the corn dealer's house down, OR circulating his opinions peacefully through the press.

The reason that I bring this up is that, while Hitchens is correct in saying that nobody's free speech should be impaired, and that this law would probably impair free speech, he does not suggest that people act more diplomatically about what could be considered to be hate speech. I would have liked to see that, because I can imagine people walking out of that room inspired (and rightfully so) by Hitchens' message, but not taking into account the means by which they can communicate their feelings of intense dislike. Since the rest of Hitchen's speech was so powerful, it is probable that many people watching it would take his word as "divine" and maybe not think critically about it, because it is all so obviously true. However, by thinking about it, one would realise that it is not so simple as saying what you want. It is also about how you say it.

2. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54401 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Thomas B,

I think I was not clear if I meant that we are entrenched in evolutionary thinking. On the other hand, I think that, as far as we know, it is a perfectly workable theory. However, what I meant to say was that we should not become so entrenched in evolutionary theory that we rule out the possibility of anything else (by this I do not mean religion, but maybe another theory that could come later), and that religious people are often individuals who do just this - rule out the possibilty of anything else because of the stubbornness of their faith.

And when you say, "There is no controversy to teach," I disagree with you. Even though the controversy is fallacious, absurd, and frankly insulting to the human race, it is still a controversy because people make it so. I think that if people (and by this I mean specifically the children who are being educated) learn about creation in a purely secular way, they will eventually come to see how silly it is, and then discard it. I can tell you that the only reason I am an atheist is that I've studied evolution and religion, and found evolution to be much more reasonable. It was J.S. Mill who said that if we simply have a view without criticism, it is worth nothing, because there are no alternatives. However, if the view is criticized but the criticism is rejected, then it strengthens the original view. If our children are educated in only evolution, they will not have anything with which to compare it, just like people who are educated in religion. However, if they study both in a secular way, they will almost indubitably decide for themselves that evolution makes more sense, which would give more credibility to the theory.

3. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54331 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 11:51 am

ThomasB,

I like the Sedna story, and thanks for reminding me of it. I've read it before, but I had forgotten about it until your response. I also think that it would be a good story to teach alongside evolutionary theory because it is not very mainstream, and comparing it to, say, an Abrahamic creationist story would be very worthwhile. I say this because it is just as farfetched as the Abrahamic stories, but not nearly as widely-worshipped. I also think that the Abrahamic stories should be told from a purely "factual" (and by that I mean non-factual since they contain no facts) angle because they are well-known. However the origins of the stories should be told as well, including the Council of Nicea, the possible Gospel of Judas, and the Christian Book Burnings. Furthermore, world stories such as the Ramayana should be told so that they can be compared to the Abrahamic ones for the same reason as the Sedna story - namely, to show that we have no more reason to believe Moses than we do to believe the ancient inuits.

Lauregon, I don't think that we should teach flat-earth ideas because frankly that would be a waste of time. The difference between flat-earth ideas and religion/evolution is that the flat-earth ideas have been unequivocally disproven, whilst neither religion or evolution is proven to be correct. While we think that evolution is much more likely to be true than anything else, it is still the "Theory of Evolution" and not the "Law of Evolution". Creationist stories are like any fairy tale, but that does not make them impossible or disproven. Assuming they are incorrect would be assuming a 'guilty until proven innocent' perspective, which is a very dangerous one to have, and which is also the one that is shared by religious people.

4. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54300 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 9:58 am

I agree that schooling is essential for religion to be eradicated, but I do not think that religion should be taught to be necessarily wrong, nor do I think that evolution should be taught to be irrevocably correct. Instead, I think that facts should be presented to the students from both angles, and the student should make up his/her mind (most likely choosing evolution because it is based on reason and is actually SUPPORTED by facts...).

If this did not happen and evolution was taught as the only possibility, students will have nothing with which to compare evolution. It would be the same as religion, actually, since a lot of religious fundamentalists believe what they do because they had not been taught anything else at the age when they formulated their opinions. I don't think Professor Dawkins or any other brilliant scientist would want people to blindly follow evolution, for then it would be a difficult theory to improve or possibly revoke if, in the unforseeable future, somebody comes up with a better alternative. If we are so firmly entrenched in evolution like the religious are so firmly entrenched in religion, then we will be almost as blind as them.