Richard Dawkins says Pope is 'Stupid'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iamnotafraid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact is Richard Dawkins claims are not backed by SCIENCE! I site this article:
Some experts are even coming to the pope’s defense. In “The Pope May Be Right” in the Washington Post, Edward C. Green reports “in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.” As a self-described liberal and senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, he has no brief for the Vatican.
Click to expand...
While Green acknowledges that condom promotion has worked in countries like Thailand and Cambodia where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex, it has not proven successful in Africa where most HIV infections are found in the general population, not in high risk groups. Nor can condoms “address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.”
Click to expand...
According to Green, one explanation why an emphasis on condoms has not worked is that “when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.” This is the point the pope was trying to make.
Click to expand...
In Africa, the risky behavior is evident where significant proportions of the population have two or more regular sex partners at the same time. Multiple partners at the same time is much more likely to spread HIV than multiple partners over time. One study in Botswana, according to Green, found that “43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.”
Click to expand...
“These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads” writes Green. “A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.”
Click to expand...
So what has been effective in Africa? Green points to Uganda’s program that focuses on “Sticking to One Partner.” But Green is not an anti-condom purist. Although he does not mention abstinence, Green’s position is similar to the ABC anti-AIDS program used in Uganda and elsewhere: Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms. He says that “condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship.” Condoms are the third choice, not the first.
Click to expand...
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/03/pope_condoms_and_aids.html

–

And…

kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=57748
Green writes that “people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least some of the time” and they “actually engage in riskier sex.” In addition, many people in Africa rarely use condoms in stable relationships “because doing so would imply a lack of trust,” Green continues, adding that it is “those ongoing relationships that drive Africa’s worst epidemics” where most HIV cases occur in general populations rather than high-risk groups like commercial sex workers, men who have sex with men or injection drug users. “And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time,” creating an “invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads,” Green writes. What has proven effective in Africa are “trategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks – or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones,” Green writes, adding, “‘Closed’ or faithful polygamy can work as well.”
Click to expand...
 
In the article, he encouraged people to “think for themselves” instead of listening to the Pope. He predicted if they do that, they will stop believing in God.

I’m pleased that he makes the connection between the Pope and God. Many people totally miss that.

And I suppose his advice is good, assuming someone has the hope of going to hell?
 
Iamnotafraid said:
‘Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.’
Click to expand...
Now let’s see… if two people who are married to each other are faithful and are not infected, they cannot get the infection, nor spread it. If two people who are married to each other are faithful and are both infected, they cannot pass the infection to another. If two people who are married to each other are faithful and one is infected and the other is not, if they are chaste they cannot pass the infection to the other. If two people who are not married to each other are faithful in chastity and are not infected, they cannot get the infection, nor spread it. Sounds to me like a reduction in infection is doable without condoms.

I know, I know… people are not always faithful to their state in life. But doesn’t that beg just the question. If people are committing adultery, fornication, or have multiple sexual partners, does anybody actually believe that they are not already using condoms? It’s not as if this is the one place where people’s consciences are convicted, and they choose to follow church teaching regarding condoms while ignoring the other teachings regarding sexual activity.
 
Below is listed as risk factors for being infected with HIV, and if any of the below are true, you are not to donate blood. Conspicuously absent is getting any credit for those who use condoms. With regards to AIDS:

You are at risk for getting infected if you have:
  • taken illegal or nonprescription drugs by needle, even once
  • taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
  • tested positive for any AIDS virus
  • been given money or drugs for sex, since 1977
  • had a sexual partner who puts you at risk for AIDS infection. This means:
    -you have had sex in the last 12 months with someone who is at risk for being infected with the AIDS virus (described above)
    -if you are a male, had sex even once with another male since 1977; or within the last 12 months, given a female money or drugs to have sex with you, or
    -if you are a female, within the last 12 months, given anyone money or drugs to have sex with you; or had a male sex partner who had sex with another male even once since 1977
  • been born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977.
  • since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
  • had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries.
 
LOL, and who’s Richard Dawkins?

Oh wow I’m so offended…someone most people have never heard of makes a little statement. :rotfl:
 
yellowbird said:
In the article, he encouraged people to “think for themselves” instead of listening to the Pope. He predicted if they do that, they will stop believing in God.

I’m pleased that he makes the connection between the Pope and God. Many people totally miss that.

And I suppose his advice is good, assuming someone has the hope of going to hell?
Click to expand...
It is odd how many people believe that the definition of thinking for oneself is to accept what ever they say is correct
 
Everyone who’s read the articles cited above and decided to either comment on it or share it with others is stupid. Dawkins wants attention, you’re giving him attention. Go and learn.
 
Dawkins comments like some authoirty on…

History
Theology
Society
Health etc

but aside from a degree in biology has not qualifications in these areas.
 
The Holy Father’s statement is a comment. It was not a dogma or a moral law. The morality of the issue is promiscuity. That’s what the Pope is focussing on, not the ins and outs of AIDS.

The Pope does not claim to be an expert on medical science or biological science. Dawkins is not an expert on moral theology.

As far as I can see, we have two educated men expressing an opinion, even a concern and being on different ends of the spectrum.

The difference here is that Dawkins does not have the good manners to acknowledge that the Pope’s concern in morality and his area of expertise in pastoral care, not biological science.

If he took the Pope’s statement as part of the Pope’s role in moral issues, it may still not make much scientific sense to him, but it would be consistent with the role of a spiritual leader.

If Dawkins would see that this is the statement of a spiritual leader speaking about the sacredness of human sexuality, the statement would make sense in that context and he would still be free to disagree from a purely nutural biological perspective.

This way, he would save face and still have his opportunity to explain why he disagrees.

By calling the Pope names, he has said nothing that is very scientific. He certainly has not made a statement that would make the scientific community jump up and take notice. Therefore, why should the rest of us do so?

If he wants to think that the Pope is dumb, because he’s listening to him out of context, that’s his perception and he has a right to have it. The rest of the world does not have to share it and most people who understand context, do not share it.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
What irony - Dawkins claims that the Pope will have “the blood of millions on his hands” because he upholds the Church’s teachings regarding artificial birth control. However, it is Dawkins who will have to answer for his advice to others regarding sexual morality and the existance of God.
 
Eucharisted said:
Everyone who’s read the articles cited above and decided to either comment on it or share it with others is stupid. Dawkins wants attention, you’re giving him attention. Go and learn.
Click to expand...
Did you just call me stupid?
 
Father_of_9 said:
What irony - Dawkins claims that the Pope will have “the blood of millions on his hands” because he upholds the Church’s teachings regarding artificial birth control. However, it is Dawkins who will have to answer for his advice to others regarding sexual morality and the existance of God.
Click to expand...
We know what Dawkins believes. Let us not go into what his conscience will have to answer for. That is not appropriate. Check out Fr. Serpa’s recent answer as to how one knows that one is in mortal sin. It is very interesting.

We can condemn what Dawkins teaches, but we may not foresay what he will have to answer for. That’s an interior matter between conscience and God.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
I don’t presume to know what will happen to Dawkins when he dies. However, it is accurate to say that he, just like all of us, will have to answer for our actions while we’re alive. If he’s correct and there’s no God to hold us accountable, then he’ll answer to no one. But if he’s wrong and God exists, then he’ll have to answer to God. Can he be saved? Yes. Will he be saved? Only God knows.
 
from the article:
“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Click to expand...
I couldn’t help but have two thoughts. The first is that acting like there is no God is what got a lot of those people in the problems they’re in. The second was the word ‘probably’ jumped out at me.
 
Father_of_9 said:
I don’t presume to know what will happen to Dawkins when he dies. However, it is accurate to say that he, just like all of us, will have to answer for our actions while we’re alive. If he’s correct and there’s no God to hold us accountable, then he’ll answer to no one. But if he’s wrong and God exists, then he’ll have to answer to God. Can he be saved? Yes. Will he be saved? Only God knows.
Click to expand...
Moral theology is a little more complex than that. It teaches us that one is culpable and must answer for what one has done knowing that it is wrong.

You and I know that Prof. Dawkins positions are wrong. But the professor may not. He may be convinced that his positions are correct and that he is saving the world from a fantasy. In other words, in his mind, he may have the desire to do something that he sees as a good.

Augustine reminds us that the orientation of morality is toward doing what is the good. He does not guarantee that we are always going to see the good. Maybe, Prof. Dawkings does not see the good. Maybe he is not trying to do evil.

This is where moral theology becomes tricky. An action can be evil, but the actor may not be culpable of evil, because had he known that it was evil and been fully convinced of it, he may not have committed the action.

We don’t know these things about Prof. Dawkin’s thinking. We only know what he says and we can say that he is wrong, but can we really say that he is wrong because he wants to do evil? That one has to be left alone.

Even Hitler, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao and others have never been judged by the Church, only their actions and what they have said, not the inner secrets of their soul.

I’m not in agreement with the professor’s comments about the Pope’s statement. I do believe that the comment crossed into a domain that is not the professor’s domain.

But let us be careful, not to take so much offense at such a comment that we return the favor by disparaging the man.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Dandelion_Wine said:
from the article: I couldn’t help but have two thoughts. The first is that acting like there is no God is what got a lot of those people in the problems they’re in. The second was the word ‘probably’ jumped out at me.
Click to expand...
I like your observation about the word probably, because it demonstrates that we cannot say “there is no God”. We can only hypothesize and many hypotheses have been proven wrong.

Good observation.

JR 🙂
 
I think we’re saying the same thing, only in different words. Again, I don’t presume to know why Dawkins believes what he does nor his ultimate destiny based on his beliefs and actions. However, whenever he or someone else attempts to influence others with statements that we Christians believe to be false and possibly dangerous to the souls of others, we are obliged to speak up. I respect his free will and right to believe in whatever he chooses, but I will speak up in defense of the Pope and our Church’s official teachings. He has the right to make his comment about blood being on the Pope’s hands and others have the right (and duty) to refute that. That is the basis of my original comment, not a personal attack on a person who deserves our respect regardless of disagreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top