It's his pretencethat science presents evidence that God is a delusion that is bollocks. It doesn't.
Yes, he's a trained scientist but scientific training or the lack of it has absolutely fuck all to do with belief in the existence or non-existence of God. Either belief is a statement of faith and nothing more.
Dawkins used to be quite good but he seems to have turned just as bad as the Intelligent Design idiots.
(Yes, he's a trained scientist but scientific training or the lack of it has absolutely fuck all to do with belief in the existence or non-existence of God. Either belief is a statement of faith and nothing more.
Dawkins used to be quite good but he seems to have turned just as bad as the Intelligent Design idiots.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 13:07,
archived)
I disagreeI think the book presents some pretty decent arguments, bearing in mind it's written for the novice or layman.
I don't think he really Does say outright that science presents evidence that proves God is a delusion, I mean, he does say that there is overwhelming evidence against young-earth Creationism, which is a fair point, but his arguments against organized religion are mostly sociological, and his arguments against the existence of God are mostly philosophical.
He does, however say that the emphirical method is the best way of gaining a better understanding of the universe, and that Theism can be an impediment, which I agree with.
(,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 14:39,
archived)
I don't think he really Does say outright that science presents evidence that proves God is a delusion, I mean, he does say that there is overwhelming evidence against young-earth Creationism, which is a fair point, but his arguments against organized religion are mostly sociological, and his arguments against the existence of God are mostly philosophical.
He does, however say that the emphirical method is the best way of gaining a better understanding of the universe, and that Theism can be an impediment, which I agree with.
Fair pointsand some of the book I agreed with. Young Earth creationism is blatant bollocks.
I just find his ranty anti-religion to be as annoying and meaningless as the ranty (admittedly mostly right-wing American) pro-religion nutters.
Clearly, I agree that emprical method is the best way of gaining an understanding. I disagree that theism hampers scientific progress though. It's a total fallacy that belief in a god and belief in science are mutually exclusive. Only idiots really think that. If God did create the Universe then it was created to run on the things we can observe through science and the study of the Universe can (if you believe in God) easily be seen as a study of that creation. Isaac Newton anybody?
(I just find his ranty anti-religion to be as annoying and meaningless as the ranty (admittedly mostly right-wing American) pro-religion nutters.
Clearly, I agree that emprical method is the best way of gaining an understanding. I disagree that theism hampers scientific progress though. It's a total fallacy that belief in a god and belief in science are mutually exclusive. Only idiots really think that. If God did create the Universe then it was created to run on the things we can observe through science and the study of the Universe can (if you believe in God) easily be seen as a study of that creation. Isaac Newton anybody?
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 20 Jul 2007, 16:19,
archived)
both theories are bollockseveryone knows the universe was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. www.venganza.org
(
ArghZombies No longer has a Leaky QUIM,
Sat 21 Jul 2007, 9:53,
archived)