Richard Dawkins

Lads
You really have to much free time on your hands,
This thread must win the award for the longest (and some might say confusing ) posts in these board :lol: :lol:

Speaking of having too much free time, has anyone even been caught reading IFAS threads when they were supposed to be working (just like I am ....now )

This thread must win the award for the longest (and some might say confusing ) posts in these board :lol: :lol:

You read my mind!

You should have seen my post that got away

And you evidence for mind reading is???

I'm not even going to bother commenting on every point, I'll make my own instead:

1. There is not now and has never been a need to explain everything. Some humans have a desire to do so, which can be a symptom of fear caused by all the bad thing that happen around them, some don't. Those who fear the world around them tend to seek the reassurance of certain types of religion, politics or scientism. Those who don't have that fear yet want to explain the world around them tend to be scientists.

Ill agree with most of this
But what about the chancellor of Germany (you know - the physicist?)
What about that "Turn left at Orion" guy - you knw 0 - the Priest?
What about that heretical religious zealot - Newton?
0r the other one - Kepler?
And wouldn't a world run by scientists - a scientocracy - be terrible. Ammost as bad ans an astrocracy!

2. Science can never be a belief or a dogma.

You believe that do you? Same think happened to positivism!

In my opinion Mr Dawkins appears to be a believer in scientism, which I place in the same category as religious and political beliefs that depend on the negative, the destructive and the fearful for their existence. Out with all of them I say.

Including absolutist statements like "science can NEVER be a belief"?

I have no problem with scientists being politicians or members of the clergy, or vice versa. I can think of many branches of science where it is beneficial for the practitioner to be informed by a knowledge of politics (real world practicalities) and religion (moral standards), and for that matter branches of theology or politics benefit from being informed by a knowledge of science.

In fact all three are important components of a rounded view of the world. The fact that I don't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that I ignore the moral philosophies that are part and parcel of mainstream religion, and the fact that I am not a politician doesn't stop me from taking the realities of interaction with the body politic concerned about any given matter into account.

I have no problem with scientists being politicians or members of the clergy, or vice versa. ...the fact that I am not a politician doesn't stop me from taking the realities of interaction with the body politic concerned about any given matter into account.

Fair comment. Neither attacking people for religious belief or belief in something like "fundamental physical laws of the universe". IIRC Sartre regarded religion as one of the most benign influsences on civilisation. and look at his personal beliefs!

voyager wrote:

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.

No. Social constructivism ihas applications in teaching and learning practice and indeed much of it has been developed from that field. But the ontological and episemological ramifications extend into phenomonology. In other words the nature of what knowledge is and the philosophy of knowledge. Social constructivism is a particularly thorny version of constructionism.

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

My point isn't about how communities learn. It is about the nature of the knowledge itself and even whether (harking back to Berkeley) knowledge can exist independently of people!

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.

Scientists may not. some will. But what is this "science" which actually has the ability to believe or refuse to believe in something? see the problem?

To me that is the polar opposite of faith.

But can "science" believe or disbelieve in something?


When Penzias and Wilson presented their bell curve...

But what has happened since? Has science just sat there and assumed the CMB was real?

I don't think "science" is a person who "sits around" or choses to believe or disbelieve.

No, it has probed and prodded the CMB over and over again in ever greater detail.

Scientists did that!

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.

This is saying science is cumulative. So what? So is theology! Mind you you are assuming a philosophy of science where science acts as a person; where there is an objectively definable "reality" which we can always discover mare "facts" about; and where only science is doing this.

Question everything and judge based only on evidence. That's science.

That's scepticism. I should know. I am one

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.

It is quite clear that I was referring to the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and the Thomist paragygm as a rational foundation of both western science and christian theology.

Furthermore it is this grey arey where sience and philosophy of science moves away from the positivist mechanist paradygm.

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.

Richard Muller believes in Nemsis. John Gribben believes in parallel universes. Both are scientists. Actually I met gribben and he was stumped that in one of these universes of infinite possibilities he didnt believe in them!

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

Not i . Particularly the philosophy of science! Which is not to be confused with science itself.

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.

Which Burbridge (met him too) likened to the current "big Bang" school of physicists!

Like you I do not like Dawkins or his breed of evangelical atheism.

Bart.

Sorrt I was not tyying to assert you in particular regarded me as a kook. If I did so I withdraw the allegation. It looks like he can believe in disbelieveing.