Re: Richard Dawkins - yeah, whatever...*yawn*

Ilas wrote:
"Ex_OWM" <allthespamyoulike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5j14orF3rk5jaU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:fnjmc312ivjsbq7gp6ivqb738211cu4qus@xxxxxxxxxx

They are no more irrational that Jesuit
theologians. Both cling equally fondly to foolish beliefs.

Can you give any examples of *foolish beliefs* held by Jesuits that
are contrary to scientific evidence ?

Dearie me. Well, OK, if you insist. How about hell and heaven? How
about God himself? How about transubstantiation, the virgin Mary,
water into wine, resurrection, the efficacy of prayer, Lazarus? In
fact, how about all miracles, each and every one? How about god
creating the universe (with us in mind, incidentally. Obviously
thought we liked stars. And beetles)? How about original sin, limbo,
or purgatory (or are those not flavour of the month now)? I could go
on.

You could. You would not, however, be stating anything which is contrary to
scientific evidence.

Science has nothing to say about hell and heaven. Science has nothing to say
about the spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist. Original sin, limbo
and purgatory are not areas where science has an opinion. You can claim that
these beliefs are absurd, but you can't call on science to help you.

The idea that science has fundamental explanations for the nature of the
universe is a perverse kind of scientific superstition. Good scientists have
no truck with it.


Now you could say none of those have any evidence one way or the
other - nobody can prove that heaven does not exist for example - but
that does not make they have an equal likelihood of being true or
false. In exactly the same way, we have no evidence whatsoever for
the invisible pink unicorn that lives in my attic and holds the sky
up. But I'm pretty sure you'd think my belief in Old Pinky (as I call
him) is foolish. That's because I made him up, and the Jesuits's
beliefs are foolish for the same reason. The only difference is that
more people believe their made up nonsense than mine.

You can advance your belief that all explanations of the existence of the
universe apart from the materialist one are nonsense. What you can't do is
call on science to help you. You're arguing metaphysics, not physics, and
you have to use the same tools as the other philosophers.


--



J/

SOTW: "Isis" - Bob Dylan

http://www.azcars.eu/wdfdi/



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Richard Dawkins - yeah, whatever...*yawn*
    ... evolution which _are_ contradicted by scientific evidence. ... that science doesn't actually care about - because it makes no difference to ... As to the creation of the universe - science has no explanation for that, ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Ludicrous Christian comments. :-)
    ... Science is a revolving door that proves one thing one day and the next finds ... There is now SCIENTIFIC evidence to suggest Oil is renewable and created by ... Because science has proven that the universe is currently burning up a ... fixed amount of usable fuel, and there is no ...
    (rec.music.makers.percussion)
  • Re: Global Warming is it Real or is Al Gore trying to make money off you?
    ... there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric ... The main thrust is the rejection, by the USA, of the Kyoto Accords. ... You can't argue science with liars and people who believe in FTL ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... because they claim to have scientific support ... Science is based in methodological naturalism. ... and if IDers have faith that their assertions are validated by ... Scientific evidence is objective by definition. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... because they claim to have scientific support ... Science is based in methodological naturalism. ... their faith tells them that what they are doing is correct science. ... Scientific evidence is objective by definition. ...
    (talk.origins)