[kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

Brendan bq at soundgardener.co.nz
Fri May 7 13:57:56 EDT 2010


A prominent scientist attacking the existence of god based on the lack of
evidence means that the argument is categorically a science vs religion
rebate.

I think you need to make a point, attack something he's said specifically
(rather than the way he's said it), because I'm not really getting any
solid reason you're against his right to write that book.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The god argument has as
much proof as the Tooth Fairy argument. Writing a book to go into that in
depth doesn't make someone a fanatic.


> For a start, this discussion isn't about science vs religion, or about

> Dawkins' views on science. It's about Dawkins' ideas on God, and his

> book-length treatise on why everybody else is wrong.

>  

> I'm also sure the majority of scientists behave in an eminently reasonable

> fashion, but my comments are referring to Dawkins, not scientists, and

> God, not science.

>  

> I'm also not convinced that science isn't allowed to crticize religion.

> Not sure I know any creationists who *aren't* regarded as wackos.

>

> Jim.

>

> --- On Fri, 7/5/10, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:

>

>

> He spent his whole - brilliant - career at loggerheads with Christians,

> being stymied in his efforts to teach in a field he's an expert and

> pioneer in. He's certainly been very successful in developing the field of

> evolutionary biology, whether that's recognised 100 years in the future,

> and his theories still current, who knows. But you can imagine how you'd

> feel under the circumstances. It's an unfair fight when one side

> (religion) is allowed to criticise the other but society won't brook any

> counter argument. One of his main aims, and he's been relatively

> successful so far, is to alter that situation.

>

> Another thing - one of the dictates of the Simonyi Professorship for the

> Public Understanding of Science (which was set up specifically with him in

> mind as the first holder) is to make a particular impact in one area of

> the public understanding of science. I think he's done a great job.

>

> He recounts a situation in The Root of All Evil documentary, of the

> admiration his class felt for a professor who had just been publicly

> proven wrong about a theory he'd held for his whole career, who shook the

> hand of the visiting professor who'd proven him wrong and thanked him.

> That's the difference between fundamentalism and evidence based science.

>

> The idea that he doesn't admit a single shred of doubt about science is

> just plain wrong.

>

>>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>





More information about the Gathering mailing list