Eh? Would you care to give some examples to back that statement up? He has written extensively on the subject, made it his career mission to try to explain his points of view on the origins of life, the universe and everything, including religion and he is an evolutionary biologist. Your statement would appear to be completely false. But I await your evidence.
Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock
- Thread starter ClubMan
- Start date
Eh? Would you care to give some examples to back that statement up? He has written extensively on the subject, made it his career mission to try to explain his points of view on the origins of life, the universe and everything, including religion and he is an evolutionary biologist. Your statement would appear to be completely false. But I await your evidence.
The problem here is Dawkins' assumptions about proof. I mean, people don't believe in God for no reason, that would be silly. They can generally give reasons, sure, the reason may just be "it just feels right" or something non-rational (not the same as irrational) like that, but it's a reason none-the-less.
What is Dawkins' definition of 'proof'? He's never particularly clear about this (probably because it would require him to actually do some philosophy). Does he mean deductive proof? No - he can't, since we believe in many things without deductive proof. Does he mean scientific evidence? Well, God is not a scientific entity, so looking for scientific evidence of God is a doomed exercise. It's simply not a reasonable request.
Secondly, there is nothing in the philosophy of science that claims that "science is the only way to knowledge" or anything dumb like that. It is perfectly possible that the theist is justified in believing in God due to non-scientific and non-deductive methods.
The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.
What is Dawkins' definition of 'proof'? He's never particularly clear about this (probably because it would require him to actually do some philosophy). Does he mean deductive proof? No - he can't, since we believe in many things without deductive proof. Does he mean scientific evidence? Well, God is not a scientific entity, so looking for scientific evidence of God is a doomed exercise. It's simply not a reasonable request.
Secondly, there is nothing in the philosophy of science that claims that "science is the only way to knowledge" or anything dumb like that. It is perfectly possible that the theist is justified in believing in God due to non-scientific and non-deductive methods.
The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.
I wonder how he views this problem of minority. Most people do probably find his views somewhat repellant.
Dawkins frequently points out how close we are genetically to chimps - and hardly a day passes without some new scientific study showing how related we are.
Dawkins himself is very active in the efforts to extending moral and legal rights to chimpanzees and other apes.
As far as I know chimps get on with their lives without any religious activity so I wonder if the great apes - with extended rights - could provide a boost to the numbers of atheists ? Though even with that I still think the numbers would be quite small.
Science is a means to gaining knowledge about the workings of the Universe and everything in it. What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists.
If there is another "way to knowledge" as you call it, I would genuinely like to hear more about it.
There's a hypothesis that the human brain is pre-disposed to religious belief so I'd guess it would follow that atheism would be in the minority and be repellant to the majority.
[broken link removed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
If they look for scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity they'll never find it.
Philosophy.
The scientific method can tell us nothing of morals, ethics, etc. Now I'm not about to get into a massive debate about Science versus Religion or Philosophy in general, but there is more to life than cold hard scientific facts, and I simply would not believe anyone who claimed they truly believed otherwise.
So you're basically saying that we need religious belief to promote good behaviour in a society.
Good parenting skills, civic lessons etc would do as good a job.
I really have no idea where you got that notion from.
We do need morals to tell us how to behave though, and they won't come from science. Saying that they'll come from good parenting doesn't make sense. Where do they originate from?
Richard Dawkins has also attacked astrology. So it looks like the Archbishop and Atheist agree on some things !
Dawkins attacks astrology as false and as having "sad human consequences".
Astrologers state that the chance coincidence and physical placement of planets and stars can have human consequences.
Dawkins disagrees and says they have it wrong: it's the chance coincidence and physical placement of electrons and atoms in our genes that have human consequences
Just wondering Shanegl, is there a particular school of thought in conventional philosophy that you would subscribe to on this issue?
e.g. Humanism?
I originally asked you about this "knowledge" that could reveal the existence of a supernatural entity. In your next post you ignored this and continued your with analysis of the "inadequacies" of the scientific method.
"The scientific method can tell us nothing of morals, ethics, etc."
I agree with you here but disagree with your implication that religion is the only source of rules for morality/ethical behaviour. You seem to be waving this as a trump card against Science.
It is much more likely that the rules for morality/ethical behaviour are constructs of the human mind.
I would tend towards humanism personally. That doesn't mean I agree with the way Dawkins goes about things though.
The British Humanist Association felt it appropriate to elect him their vice president though.
So in your view is the BHA wrong to have Dawkins representing them?
Z
z109
Guest
Um, no, not all of us are saying that.
The absence of faith (atheism) does not require a proof/disproof. For many atheists, just because they do not believe in any god does not mean they think that other people are wrong or stupid to believe in a particular god. In the same way that many people claim their spirituality as personal, those atheists have a personal disbelief system.
Or indeed that society does it for individuals. Social mores are distinct from those of the individual. Hence personally liberal people supporting an illiberal society (the "some of my best friends are Jewish, but I voted for the Nazi party" case).