Top scientists suggest creationists should be ‘imprisoned’..

[Palimpsest]

People can express their thoughts on anything. I just don't like anyone giving those thoughts more weight simply because they are seen as an expert in another area.

Found Krauss' CV online (and it never ceases to amaze me what gets posted online): http://genesis1.asu.edu/cv.htm He's an expert in astrophysics, no significant background in mental health.

Lots of examples of this, of course. Dr. Laura, for example, puts the emphasized the doctor part without clarifying that it was a Ph.D in physiology that has nothing to do with the marriage and family advice that she gave.

I'm often the first of argue that something is hyperbole - but it's a bit fuzzy here. Compulsory education requirements exist, to various extents. Both Dawkins and Krauss are atheism activists - they don't simply lack religious belief, they are "evangelical" about their lack of belief and seek to persuade others. Dawkins has actually stated that religion is evil. For some, the idea of believers facing prison seems totally far-fetched, but I know people who have lived that reality. It's not impossible that their words could ever influence public policy. Does mild-mannered mean that someone's words are harmless? Could you just as easily argue that they are seen as credible and mainstream and are more likely to influence public policy than some fringe whackadoos?

Dawkins seriously annoys me because he is evangelical in his atheism (and is an idiot). For Dawkins atheism is a religion. I dislike radical and evangelical atheists as much as I dislike extreme fundamentalists and rabid evangelicals in any and all religions. I don't know enough about Krauss to form a judgment about him.

There are many, many, examples of people being persecuted (in the real sense of that term) for their faith - and the lack of the "right" faith depending on the circumstances. And for having no faith (although I think atheists claiming "persecution" in the US is a load of bull), yes, atheists have also been imprisoned and persecuted over time.

Extreme opinions (hyperbolic or not) expressed loudly on both sides tend to make the moderates (and hopefully the majority of voters) take a more sensible view. Unless the extremes on either end get majority political power then all is good.

Increasingly "mainstream" academics are dismissed and dissed as ivory tower pundits. You just roundly dissed and dismissed two "mainstream" academics yourself because their views differ from your own on religion and education. Come to think of it, if you are not an "expert" in education then perhaps you should not express your views at all - by your own stated standards.

They (apparently) think religion is harmful. You do not. You are both allowed to express your views.

I tend to agree with the atheist scientists that Christian Fundamentalist Creationists denying their children exposure to scientific knowledge and education is harmful. I think any religion denying education to women because of their gender is harmful. Heck, I think restricting any and all education because of religious preferences is harmful in and of itself.

No-one's words are ever harmless. However, living in the USA, I do worry that extreme Fundamentalist Christianity and the whackadoodle extremists in many religions are gaining power. They are self proclaimed "experts" and becoming more "mainstream." Scary stuff.

[eri]

Richard Dawkins is a dick. I was raised without any gods and am as atheist as they come, but wouldn't trust anything political that comes out of his mouth. For one, he isn't qualified, and two, he is not a philosophical person beyond his atheism.

Creationism is inappropriate, sure, but it is a symptom of a larger problem. Let's take care of THAT first.

[eri]

People who live on any extreme do nothing to help "their cause." I also can't imagine how one allows themselves to become so entrenched in their own beliefs that they can't possibly see how harmful their beliefs are.

You can be an extremist and still not be an asshole about it, and being an extremist doesn't automatically make you wrong. For example, I am extremely pro-marriage equality, pro-education, pro-animal conservation, anti-child abuse, anti-animal abuse, anti-sexual assault, etc. I would defend any one of these causes to the death if need be. Doesn't make it wrong. Not by a long shot. Extreme atheism is a disease only if you're a dick about it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Palimpsest:

You misunderstood my point.

I never said that nobody should ever comment on something outside of their field of expertise.

What I am criticizing is giving more weight to an opinion that comes from an "expert", when that opinion is outside of that person's area of expertise. When Dawkins talks about gene evolution or Krauss talks about astrophysics, they are giving views based on years of research and study, and have more knowledge than the average person. I'm not dissing or dismissing them on their scientific work. Questioning the "top scientists" headline wasn't intended to question whether they were qualified scientists, it was questioning whether, among highly qualified scientists, they were considered "top" (as opposed to your average professor who may still be quite brilliant but who doesn't stand out from all the other brilliant professors). It is a criticism of the media and public as much as a criticism of them.

[MamaJunebug]

I'm a devout "I-don't-care-how-it-happened"-ist but I have to draw the line at calling for imprisonment of anybody based on her/his beliefs!

Thus I had to take a day to calm down before I even opened up this topic. And it would've been the same if the title had been "Devouts Say Evolutionists Should Be Imprisoned"!!!!