Richard Dawkins

That is supposed to be proof of God?

where did I calim it proves God? It is however evidence of something beyond science. if it is not then care to please scientifically explain how and why the woman acted as she did?

Looks a lot like proof of the great potentail of human beings to me.

and this is all "hardwired" into all human beings? What physical rules or laws govern "human potential"?

I don't see any reason to evoke a mythical being in the sky to explain an act of kindness, I have more faith in humanity than that.

You have it the wrong way around. how does science explain kindness?

You seem to be assuming that I believe science has all the answers. I do not.

I just don't see any of this, or indeed anything else I have seen in my life, as proof of a God. However, I also don't see any proof that their is no God. People have what appear to be very real spiritual experiences that science cannot fully explain. It may well be that there is more to this universe than the physical world. That's why I would class myself an an agnostic.

I just think it's important to defend science when people say things about it that are patently not true.

Bart.

Second of all is the assumption that science deals with facts and religion with belief. In fact many basic concepts in science are faith based.

I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. The whole point is that everything has to be based on experiment and observation and MUST be questioned. Nothing it to be taken on the basis of faith. Faith is the polar opposite to science.

Some postmodern philosophies of science e.g. social constructivism (on which by the way I reserve my personal opinion) suggest ALL knowledge is socially constructed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars wrote: Some interpreted Kuhn's ideas to mean that scientific theories were, either wholly or in part, social constructs, which many interpreted as diminishing the claim of science to representing objective reality (though many social constructivists do not put forward this claim), and that reality had a lesser or potentially irrelevant role in the formation of scientific theories.

You could argue that gravitons which have not been observed are a matter of faith except that science looks at them as nothing more than a hypothesis until someone finds the proof. Science REFUSES to believe they are real until there is evidence.

To me that is the polar opposite of faith.

When Penzias and Wilson presented their bell curve at which they found the CMB theey had only ONE data point! the tip! But the theory looked so good everyone believed they had discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background! One point does not a curve make. The rest was theory. Great theory but ONLY theory.

Question everything and judge based only on evidence. That's science. Apply that to religion and there is very little of it left, if anything at all.

Ironic

http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/thomas4.htm wrote: Philosophy, like every science, is independent of revelation and faith in its own work and in its principles, and develops in an autonomous manner starting from these principles, having for its proper light the natural light of reason, and for sole criterion, evidence;

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html wrote: A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.

I WON'T be dismissed as a kook or a loon!
I spend enough time and energy debunking astrologers numerologists etc. to know the difference between kooks and sound rational positions!

Some postmodern philosophies of science e.g. social constructivism (on which by the way I reserve my personal opinion) suggest ALL knowledge is socially constructed!

Social Constructivism is a theory describing how we learn. It does not in any way take away from the fact that science is inherently fact-based and does not introduce faith into science in any way.

Yes, we learn as part of a community rather than in isolation. What's your point?

You could argue that gravitons which have not been observed are a matter of faith except that science looks at them as nothing more than a hypothesis until someone finds the proof. Science REFUSES to believe they are real until there is evidence.

To me that is the polar opposite of faith.

When Penzias and Wilson presented their bell curve at which they found the CMB theey had only ONE data point! the tip! But the theory looked so good everyone believed they had discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background! One point does not a curve make. The rest was theory. Great theory but ONLY theory.

But what has happened since? Has science just sat there and assumed the CMB was real? No, it has probed and prodded the CMB over and over again in ever greater detail. Had WMAP gone up and found that the CMB was not there or was in some way not as imagined do you think science would just go on prettending the CMB was as they had once thought? Of course not. Why, because science keeps going back to reality and probing and testing it, constantly updating theories and models to make sure they are in accordance with reality.

Question everything and judge based only on evidence. That's science. Apply that to religion and there is very little of it left, if anything at all.

Ironic

Philosophy, like every science, is independent of revelation and faith in its own work and in its principles, and develops in an autonomous manner starting from these principles, having for its proper light the natural light of reason, and for sole criterion, evidence;

A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.

Philosophy is not the same thing as religion. Philosophy does not rely on faith. It does not rely on people taking something as fact based on a lack of evidence. By it's very definition faith is about believing in something DESPITE the lack of any evidence. Once there is evidence then it's not faith.

I have no qualms with philosophy and wouldn't dream of pretending it is in any way worthless or pointless or anything like that.

However, stating matters of faith as matter of fact is where religious people loose me .... that and the gigantic mess that is dogam within large organised religions.

I WON'T be dismissed as a kook or a loon!
I spend enough time and energy debunking astrologers numerologists etc. to know the difference between kooks and sound rational positions!

I'm not trying to make you look like a kook or a loon. At no point have I in any way belittled you. Others in this thread have, but I have not and do not approve of some of the things that have been said. I'm an agnostic, not a militant atheist! Like you I do not like Dawkins or his breed of evangelical atheism.

Bart.

Bart,

Good luck with this.

As I said earlier I will not argue this anymore.
As for belittlement ? Nobody was trying to belittle anybody here, if that has occurred then it is self inflicted. Nobody called anyone a kook, but some person sought to act the injured party.
Anyway I'll say no more I've made my points, though they're so mixed up in badly inserted quotes that I urge anyone reading this post to refer to my original statements not those inserted at random by a certain participant.

I urge the moderator to pull the plug on this before it starts to get out of hand (if it hasn't already). These boards are supposed to be about astronomy and science. Lets leave religion, superstition and mumbo jumbo out of it.

Lets leave it at live and let live and call for a ban on all religious dicussion here. There are other web forums for that kind of thing I am sure (none that I contribute to, though)

ISAW - Most people here introduce themselves, and contribute to astronomy, if that is not your intention then what is..........

As for belittlement ? Nobody was trying to belittle anybody here, if that has occurred then it is self inflicted. Nobody called anyone a kook, but some person sought to act the injured party.

I don't want to start an argument but I'd argue that at times your choice of phrasing was at best disrespectful. I would have to say that they strongly implied kookiness.

However, if you say that was unintentional then I'll take your word for it.

I urge the moderator to pull the plug on this before it starts to get out of hand (if it hasn't already). These boards are supposed to be about astronomy and science. Lets leave religion, superstition and mumbo jumbo out of it.

Lets leave it at live and let live and call for a ban on all religious dicussion here. There are other web forums for that kind of thing I am sure (none that I contribute to, though)

I disagree. I don't think that all controversy should be pulled and then banned. People can choose not to take part in threads. I have to say I found parts of this thread useful and interesting.

This thread is as much about the nature of science as anything else and I'd argue that really isn't off-topic on an astronomy board.

Bart.

Lads,
Discussing religion here with a scientific slant is sightly off topic but will be allowed so long as people are respectful to each other.
Given the tempers religious debates can flare, I would suggest that those wishing to have a heated debate do so using PMS to each other and not be arguing in public,
or just agree to disagree !!