Richard dawkins
- Thread starter NormanPorkinson
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Yes maybe I can go learn from "idiot" Dawkins
Of course he is like them he holds faith on stuff that is outside of the scientific context
Science is based on presumptions on nothing when used in a realist context. The method takes many assumptions a priori (that is, without evidence) in order to provide a useful predictive model. To then move to this model providing truth requires faith that those assumptions are how the universe actually works.
I'd suggest you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
You can only learn from his field, the other stuff is his faith and not based on science.
That’s pushing it a bit, Acidhell no fool? Isn’t there no fool like an old fool?
I quite agree, it’s very unlikely that hoards of Dawkinists will knock on your door with a copy of The God Delusion under their arms. And when you turn them away walk to the end of the drive, stare at your windows, mutter something to themselves and quote something from one of his books.
Simple question what is belifie?
In arguments, I personally never say that people are idiots, foolish perhaps but never idiots. I'd hardly say that Dawkins is mentally retarded? Unless you know better of course?
…… If I were shipwrecked on an island somewhere I personally much prefer to be in the company of Richard Dawkins than some of the American Evangelists featured on some of his TV programmes. But then again I’d prefer to be shipwrecked with the Dutch Ladies Volley ball team than Dawkins.
It's meant to be believe. It's also not comparing one against the other or who'd better. It's about Dawkins hating faith, then pushing his own faith and opionions which are outside the scope of the scientific model.
Are you are some-what disregarding all scientific evidence and putting religious faith on the same pedastal? The initial scientific model will be based on faith, yet the results help to prove we can have more than faith.
Sure we don't know how the universe works but seeing as many many models all seem to point pretty much in the same direction, allowing the construction of laws, I'd say that creates a massive advantage if you want to try compare religion to science.
No, not at all. I'm saying that science operates within a context, and if you move beyond that context, the validity of science as an approach changes.
If you want to predict the behaviour of the universe, science is peerless, but if you want to try and explain why the universe behaves that way, science is just another philosophy that, like all of them, starts with assumptions that cannot be proven. (Proving the assumptions are valid because science is predictively accurate doesn't work because it is recursive)
It would be interesting to see how many of those who take Dawkins' view of science as gospel in all contexts actually have a scientific education to BSc level or higher...
No, we are not descrediting science. We are saying it has to be used within it's parameters. It is not used to explain the why and often doesn't explain the why.
Do many argeists moan about religious people not understanding there own religion. Yet as shown in here few argeists understand what science is and have faith in it which it was not designed for.
Do many argeists moan about religious people not understanding there own religion. Yet as shown in here few argeists understand what science is and have faith in it which it was not designed for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Science is a series of theories is what I was taught. There is no great big book of truth that can replace religions because now we have technology and science
I see lots of cross overs between the two and neither necessarily displaces the other. Its down to the people of the day not being able to keep an open mind on everything.
Imagine everything you know could be incorrect, thats the reality of the world I see. When people start saying I know absolutely, they are almost certainly wrong whatever book they are reading from
I see lots of cross overs between the two and neither necessarily displaces the other. Its down to the people of the day not being able to keep an open mind on everything.
Imagine everything you know could be incorrect, thats the reality of the world I see. When people start saying I know absolutely, they are almost certainly wrong whatever book they are reading from
Well of course I have faith in it..... we all do. It doesn't explain the why but it goes a long way to doing so.
This is such a cop out arguement though. Just cause we cant, doesn't mean its any less worthy, as its validity is secured by its use and results. Even if both hold a faith position, and your whole arguement on this point seems to depend on scientist not realising they have faith, at the very least they have the right to tell you your wrong, because your faith does not create an discernable results or conclusions, it doesn't work thus it isnt correct.
Its the only arguement that you have against Dawkins is that he doesnt realise he is also in a faith based system, (used very losely) then its better to use a system that has 99.9% evidence and .1% faith than 1% evidence and 99% faith.
I saw a Youtube video saying why this is a totally useless point and it explained it so well, because this offen comes up, I wish I could find it now.
Last edited:
Obviously I can’t speak for Dawkins but isn’t his whole argument based on “evidence” against faith?
It would be interesting to know if he actually has any faith in the same way as the Archbishop of Canterbury has faith that he will go to heaven when he dies?
The Archbishop might pray that his grandchildren pass their exams at school and have faith that if he prays long and loud enough his prayers will be answered but I think it very unlikely that Dawkins would have faith in such an activity. Dawkins would, no doubt challenge his grandchildren to study harder and have faith in themselves
It would be interesting to know if he actually has any faith in the same way as the Archbishop of Canterbury has faith that he will go to heaven when he dies?
The Archbishop might pray that his grandchildren pass their exams at school and have faith that if he prays long and loud enough his prayers will be answered but I think it very unlikely that Dawkins would have faith in such an activity. Dawkins would, no doubt challenge his grandchildren to study harder and have faith in themselves
You are not undersnding the argument or what science is. Go read Dolphs links it should make much more sense after that.
It's not a cope out. It's not unworthy. It;s just that any results has to be applied within the scientific context. No one is saying that science is not an extremely powerful tool or that it is not useful.
What we are saying is when people like Darwkins take stuff outside of the scientific context it is no longer scientific and is faith based. That on it's own isn't a problem as long as they realise it is faith based and not scientific.
Last edited:
Dawkins only fault (if it is a fault at all), is a failure to comprehend why others who are free thinking and intelligent believe in a god. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. People with 'faith' by its very nature cannot be swayed by reason as their belief is not based on reason, but is based on dogma.
I accept the religious belief of others just as I accept others liking Marmite. Just don't make me eat it, get it anywhere near me or try and justify irrational actions with it. Eat it quietly in your own house and I'll eat jam and marmalade with the other sensible people.
I accept the religious belief of others just as I accept others liking Marmite. Just don't make me eat it, get it anywhere near me or try and justify irrational actions with it. Eat it quietly in your own house and I'll eat jam and marmalade with the other sensible people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,138
- Location
- Burscough
Exactly.
Why be so righteous on the point that evidence doesn't make it true as it requires 'faith' to make it true, or incredibly detailed research which proves it outright (which is never going to happen). We should ALL believe the evidence in overwhelming preference to a book that simply 'says its so and thats the end of the matter'.
This discussion is ridiculous.
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
This is all well and good but that philosophical view point of science doesn't have any practical significance when it comes to using science to help mankind! Philosophy is a useless notion for the most part, it's not pointless one but it just doesn't provide anything that is that useful - when we find that an asteroid is heading for earth, which will happen, it's science that will provide the answer, same goes for curing disease or helping us to inhabit other planets!
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
I don't envisage any other context but a scientific one and believe that science can provide the answer to any question, ok we might not know the answers to 99% of the questions but that's not because science can't answer them, it's just our brains aren't developed enough. As dawkins says if science can't answer the question, do better science!