Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[TheKnight]

He has exactly as much backing as any other philosopher or political commentator. That is to say, none at all.

Actually, some people go to school to study philosophy/political science. There are legitimate experts in the field and Dawkins (being particularly bad at the whole philosophy thing) should stick to Biology.

 

[idav]

So bigotry is ok as long as it is directed towards those you disagree with.

Bigotry is simply holding your own belief as superior. Kinda seems like that would be the case when holding any belief that one feels others are wrong about. Like Falvlun had mentioned, holding a belief is going to be bigoted unless you hold all beliefs as equally valid.

 

[PolyHedral]

Actually, some people go to school to study philosophy/political science. There are legitimate experts in the field and Dawkins (being particularly bad at the whole philosophy thing) should stick to Biology.

What does it mean to be good at philosophy? For that matter, how can one be an expert in a subject that appears to be defined by its lack of comparison criteria?

Logical reasoning is the realm of the mathematicians; reasoning backed by evidence and reality is science. How does philosophy fit in?

 

[Apex]

Bigotry is simply holding your own belief as superior. Kinda seems like that would be the case when holding any belief that one feels others are wrong about. Like Falvlun had mentioned, holding a belief is going to be bigoted unless you hold all beliefs as equally valid.

Not sure I agree with that. You can disagree with other views contrary to your own while not being bigoted about it.

From the definition:

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

"Stubborn and complete intolerance" is the key part. You can disagree with contrary views without going so far as complete intolerance.

 

[TheKnight]

<snip>-completely irrelevant post about a topic only slightly related to this one-</snip>

My point is that Dawkins often makes religious or philosophical claims without having the slightest idea about which he is talking as indicated by the sheer ignorance of some of his claims.

Take this statement regarding Romney and our getting to Mars. It is filled with inaccuracy, generalization, an obvious misunderstanding of the composition of the American people, poorly formed assumptions, and a condescending tone that are all typical in Dawkins' philosophical endeavors.

I would like to think that someone who studies things like politics and philosophy would know better than to make statements that shine so brightly on one's own ignorance.

Moreover, please realize that there are political commentators and philosophers with degrees who have studied things like history, statistics and the like to make more informed conclusions about things like who/why people are voting into an election and how we can accomplish something like getting to Mars despite the extreme lack of scientific interest in this country.

 

[Falvlun]

from the definition:


"Stubborn and complete intolerance" is the key part. You can disagree with contrary views without going so far as complete intolerance.

How exactly should we show something less than complete intolerance for scientifically incorrect beliefs, like YEC, or morally reprehensible ones like homophobia and racism? I mean, I'm not going to tolerate even a teensy weensy bit such beliefs. I don't have to be rude, no, but I'm certainly not gonna be tolerant of them. I'm also gonna be pretty stubborn about my belief that I'm right.

 

[Sir Doom]

It might sound like personal bias, but it really isn't. There are actually numerous statistics on this topic.(snipped)

Katz, if you interpret the data you just posted to mean what Apex said then you are also biased. That data tells me the statement he made is false. Not that I needed data to tell me that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not exactly up on the details of Mitt Romney's religious beliefs; what beliefs does he hold that you personally think lower his intellectual credibility? Does he let his religious beliefs influence political decisions, for example?

The question is addressed to anyone who is in full or partial agreement with the criticism that was directed at those who "seriously contemplated voting for a Mormon."

(I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity, by the way. Not being an American, I don't really care about taking sides on the issue.)

 

[Father Heathen]

For the record I would vote for a mormon if they supported the same issues I do.

 

[Scott C.]

Are you claiming that Romney won't get his own planet, if he's been a good Mormon?

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for those that love him" - Apostle Paul

If Mitt does what the Lord expects of all of us, he will be an heir of all that God has to offer, just like the rest of us.

 

[Apex]

Katz, if you interpret the data you just posted to mean what Apex said then you are also biased. That data tells me the statement he made is false. Not that I needed data to tell me that.

Then please give us your interpretation of that data.

 

[Katzpur]

Then please give us your interpretation of that data.

I would like the "unbiased" interpretation, please.

 

[Sir Doom]

Then please give us your interpretation of that data.

I would like the "unbiased" interpretation, please.

I thought you'd never ask! No, really. I didn't think you'd have to ask. It's pretty clear to me and I didn't expect to get any guff about pointing out your obvious bias. Anyway, since you asked. Here you go.

From an article by the Pew Forum:
Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education. Six-in-ten Mormons (61%) have at least some college education, compared with half of the overall population.

I'm sorry, but the general population of America does not speak to the education level of any 'other religious groups'. It also says nothing about the relative 'anti-science' of any particular religions. Not even LDS.

From www.adherents.com:
Longstanding Latter-day Saint emphasis on secular education and learning, in addition to religious education, can be seen in federal education statistics. The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on Education 1996 reported that Utah was ranked 7th academically in the nation...
A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita basis. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high school through the Advanced Placement Program.
Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%, behind North Dakota and Iowa.

I don't know how to break this to you, but Utah is not completely Mormon no matter what you think. You can't use the entire state's performance as an analogue for Mormon performance. That's completely unfair to the non-Mormons that live there. Lets pretend it works though. Lets pretend that when you are talking about Utah, you are only talking about Mormons. Seventh place? How does that allow you to consider Mormons 'more highly educated than other religious groups' ? 7TH PLACE is not 1ST PLACE. And again, absolutely nothing at all about the relative 'anti-science' of any group.

LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education.

LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish women and women with no religious affiliation.

So you beat Catholics and Protestants but not Jews or atheists. Looks like a 50/50 split of being 'more highly educated than other religious groups'. Again, no 'anti-science' mentioned.

So, please enlighten me again as to where your opinions about the relative education level of LDS vs. 'other religious groups' comes from other than the fact that you belong to that particular religion and naturally have a bias towards it?

Can we go back to agreeing that Dawkins is a bigot again and not justify his position by mirroring it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems as if it is. Being a Mormon makes one no more or less qualified, just as any religion does.
Romney doesn't seem to be on board with science though, which to me should be considered one of the top traits to look for in a leader.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From an article by the Pew Forum:
Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education. Six-in-ten Mormons (61%) have at least some college education, compared with half of the overall population.

From www.adherents.com:
Longstanding Latter-day Saint emphasis on secular education and learning, in addition to religious education, can be seen in federal education statistics. The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on Education 1996 reported that Utah was ranked 7th academically in the nation...

A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita basis. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high school through the Advanced Placement Program.
Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%, behind North Dakota and Iowa.

LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education.

LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish women and women with no religious affiliation.

It's not really fair to compare one religious group to everybody else. It also makes no mention of the credibility of college, or even if an online college counts. And not including those who actually did complete college, and to what levels, makes me wonder if the number sharply declines.
And claiming Utah's education as a Mormon victory is also unfair, as you are claiming the achievements of every non-Mormon in the state as a point for your own side.
As for the rest, it seems as if you are settling for less, and leaving the door open for those without religious affiliation to claim another spot.
Atheist and Agnostic on average have higher IQs than Theists do. Obviously you can't attribute anything to their religious leanings on the issue, and I believe in the areas you mentioned attributing it to religion is out of place. Rather it has been noted, very consistently, that one's home life and community are by far the main indications of being able to predict if someone will attain and complete a higher education.
And why no statistics for LDS men?

 

[lunamoth]

In my book, if everything else were even, being Mormon would be a point in favor of a candidate. My impression from Mormons I have known is that they are bright, educated, caring people who value family and relationships.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

I've supported Dawkins many times in the past, and I agreed with his statements right up until his mentioning of "voting for a Mormon."

Mormon =/= anti-science
Mormon =/= creationism

C'mon, Dawkins. Not cool, man.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm sorry, but the general population of America does not speak to the education level of any 'other religious groups'. It also says nothing about the relative 'anti-science' of any particular religions. Not even LDS.

The statistic still shows that LDS are on average better educated than more than half of other Americans.

I don't know how to break this to you, but Utah is not completely Mormon no matter what you think. You can't use the entire state's performance as an analogue for Mormon performance. That's completely unfair to the non-Mormons that live there. Lets pretend it works though. Lets pretend that when you are talking about Utah, you are only talking about Mormons. Seventh place? How does that allow you to consider Mormons 'more highly educated than other religious groups' ? 7TH PLACE is not 1ST PLACE. And again, absolutely nothing at all about the relative 'anti-science' of any group.

More likely the rest of Utah is bringing the LDS average down. Two LDS I know are both highly qualified molecular biologists, and one specializes in evolution genetics.

So you beat Catholics and Protestants but not Jews or atheists. Looks like a 50/50 split of being 'more highly educated than other religious groups'. Again, no 'anti-science' mentioned.

You do realize that Catholics and Protestants make up a much larger number of people than Jews and atheists in this country, right?

So, please enlighten me again as to where your opinions about the relative education level of LDS vs. 'other religious groups' comes from other than the fact that you belong to that particular religion and naturally have a bias towards it?

So, it is fine to make bigoted statements about a religious affiliation but it is biased to present data to the contrary? Who exactly is being anti-reason and anti-science here?

Can we go back to agreeing that Dawkins is a bigot again and not justify his position by mirroring it?

With friends like you ...

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sorry, but the general population of America does not speak to the education level of any 'other religious groups'.

Don't be sorry. The stats mentioned other religious groups specifically, and most were lower than the LDS.

It also says nothing about the relative 'anti-science' of any particular religions. Not even LDS.

And just what makes you think that the LDS are "anti-science"?

I don't know how to break this to you, but Utah is not completely Mormon no matter what you think.

Don't worry about how to break it to me. As a Mormon living in Utah, I am well-aware of the fact that Utah is not completely Mormon. It's interesting how quick people are to forget this when pointing out some of the negatives about Utah -- the rate of anti-depressant usage, for instance. Somehow that always gets tied back to the Mormon Church.

You can't use the entire state's performance as an analogue for Mormon performance. That's completely unfair to the non-Mormons that live there. Lets pretend it works though. Lets pretend that when you are talking about Utah, you are only talking about Mormons. Seventh place? How does that allow you to consider Mormons 'more highly educated than other religious groups' ? 7TH PLACE is not 1ST PLACE.

7th place out of 50 isn't exactly bad.

And again, absolutely nothing at all about the relative 'anti-science' of any group.

And again, what makes you think that Mormons are "anti-science"? That's the question I'd really like answered.

So you beat Catholics and Protestants but not Jews or atheists. Looks like a 50/50 split of being 'more highly educated than other religious groups'.

Not when you consider how many Americans are either Catholic or Protestant.

Again, no 'anti-science' mentioned.

And for the third time, what makes you think that Mormons are "anti-science"?

So, please enlighten me again as to where your opinions about the relative education level of LDS vs. 'other religious groups' comes from other than the fact that you belong to that particular religion and naturally have a bias towards it?

Since you are clearly biased against it, I'd say we just agree to drop the subject.

Can we go back to agreeing that Dawkins is a bigot again and not justify his position by mirroring it?

Be my guest.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not really fair to compare one religious group to everybody else.

Well, that's exactly what people are doing when they make a blanket statement or generalization that Mormons are "anti-science."

And claiming Utah's education as a Mormon victory is also unfair, as you are claiming the achievements of every non-Mormon in the state as a point for your own side.

I'll be sure to point that out the next time somebody mentions that Utah supposedly has the highest internet porn usage of any state -- a fact that people just love to tie to the fact that Utah is roughly 2/3 Mormon and consequently sexually repressed. Let's keep the playing field level here. If we can draw a correlation between the high percentage of Mormons and Utah's unfavorable statistics, we ought to be able to draw a correlation between that same population and the state's favorable statistics.

And why no statistics for LDS men?

Are you serious? Don't you know -- men are "supposed to" get educations. Women are just supposed to stay at home, be barefoot and pregnant.