ICR article image.
Posted on 06/16/2015 8:08:44 AM PDT by fishtank
Does National Geographic Promote Atheism?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
National Geographic interviewed atheist Jerry Coyne.1 The subject was not science, but Coyne's personal beliefs. Will Nat Geo provide the same platform for a researcher who believes that God, rather than nature, created all things?
In the article posted online May 31, 2015, Coyne took shots at the idea that God created the world from the perspective of his belief in an evolving universe. He is a professor of evolution at the University of Chicago, the author of the book Why Evolution is True, and has frequently contributed to National Geographic. In this new article, Coyne accused religion of being harmful superstition and promoted his new book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
I cancelled my National Geographic subscription when they published their lie on GLOBAL WARMING. I had been a faithful reader since 1956...and even before.
National Geographic has been part of the “Death to America” media for decades.
Science and superstition are incompatible. The challenge is to get rid of superstition while keeping the essentials.
Yep. I cancelled years ago, too.
“In this new article, Coyne accused religion of being harmful superstition....”
Hmm, against what objective standard does Coyne propose to judge religion?
I gave up on NG when it stopped publishing those pictures of half-nekkid native women. :)
From the article:
"National Geographic's unprecedented inside access will allow us to explore the global mystery behind God and religion. With Morgan as our storyteller, we're going to produce a visually stunning and thought-provoking series that will spur meaningful conversations about God and faith, by believers and nonbelievers alike."IOW, there is one god who manifests himself in different ways in different cultures, blah, blah, blah.Deadline reported on Thursday that Freeman will visit some of the world's most famous religious sights, including Jerusalem's Wailing Wall, India's Bodhi Tree, Mayan temples, the 10,000-year-old ruins at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, and the ancient Celtic monument at Stonehenge, among others.
I thought National Geographic was a magazine on cultures around the world, not science.
And it would appear to be hostile to this nation’s culture.
I only read it for the photoshopped pictures of pyramids and zebras.
Joel Osteen’s gay mayor approved basketball court church. Mmmm hmmmm.
The point where religion and science part ways is the part where belief is based on faith and not scientific principles.
I am not advocating one over the other, just answering your question.
Consider over the years the number of times that NatGeo ran stories about all the quaint native customs of far off tribes of indigenous peoples who were steeped in worship of all manner of deities.
But secular progressive-ism, which the staff of NatGeo certainly are, at least predominantly, is itself a religion, even if it doesn’t have a deity to bow down to. It certainly has its own hive-mind of social interactions and what is considered acceptable.
So, promoting Atheism? No. Hostile to the values found in the Bible? Very much so. Values the NatGeo pushes? Secular Progressive Values, meaning any values except those found in the Bible.
Nat Geo promotes a kind of primitivist atavism via Global Warming religiosity.
They deny God, but promote gaia.
Curious...if your standard is empiricism, how did you first prove that you exist with no presuppositions?
Your reading comprehension is not good. I said I was not taking either side of the discussion.
But, as the guy said, “I think. Therefore I am.”
I’ve been boycotting them since that stupid “war on science” issue.
I wont touch any issue of that rag made from that point on. There are plenty of great old ones to page through.
My reading comprehension is just fine. Either your logic is broken, or your memory is weak. You note that "religion" (an ugly word often used by folks who don't understand that everyone has a worldview) parts ways with science where "belief" is based on "faith and not scientific principles." I was asking upon what "scientific principle" your belief that you exist was based. You answered that apparently there is none. "I think, therefore I am." is a "belief" not an empirical proof using a "scientific principle". Thus, your initial conclusion is inaccurate.
“I am not advocating one over the other, just answering your question.”
That’s not an answer to my question. He says religion is “harmful”, that is a value judgement. In order to make a value judgement, one must have an objective standard to base your judgement on. So, what objective standard is being proposed by which to judge religion?
National Geographic was the victim of a huge hoax when it published a cover story feature about a primitive tribe in the Philippines that wore no clothing. It was later exposed as city folk paid to go out and pretend to be primitives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.