Re: I respect Dawkins as a biologists though I don´t agree with his views on religion.
- From: snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:35:03 -0700
On Jul 31, 9:04 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Milan wrote:
<louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185889422.420509.196360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Einar wrote:
I understand perfectly his orbiting teapot comparison, meaning that it
is possible to conceive of a real lot of things that can not be
refuted easilly by science, why choosing one such over another?
One can also point out that, no theory about what exchists or does not
exchist beyond this universe, can be scientifically proven or refuted
by science, which does not stop people to create all kinds of theories
about just that. In addition there is the fact that no information can
get to us humans faster than the speed of light, which means that
everything we know about the universe is an old information which may
be obsolete. At the very least there is no way to make sure of that.
It's actually very simple.
Historically, saying "this is a religious belief" gives an idea a free
pass from having to have proof. Or having to make sense. For one
thing, for most of human history, people would kill you for asking for
proof or internal logic in the local dominant religious ideas.
If you say "there is a herd of antelope other side of that hill,"
someone will go look. If there isn't one, they'll want you to stop
saying there is. If you say "I live in a house which is completely
round and _at the same time_ completely square," people will say WTF
and call you crazy. These rules of being true and making sense are
pretty much universally accepted for real-world, non-religious
statements.
But you can make parallel statements on religious matters and no one
is supposed to complain. "This book is completely true and accurate
because _it says so in its own text_, and any facts that contradict it
are evil and wrong." "This piece of bread is now really and actually
the flesh and blood of a god _without changing in any testable way_."
Dawkins makes people mad because he verbally and publicly applies real-
world standards of truth and falsity to religious matters. If I say
that my son's favorite toy talks to him and gives him guidance _in
ways no one can ever prove_, you call me crazy. If I say that an
invisible Deity talks to me and guides me _in ways no one can ever
prove_, Dawkins calls me crazy on exactly the same grounds and demands
the same level of proof from the talking God that he would from the
talking toy.
Moderate believers (and many nonbelievers) say "It's rude and unfair
to hold Religious Ideas(tm) to ordinary standards of proof. You
mustn't do it, unless it's something immediate and serious like 'God
wants me to mutilate my kids,' because it hurts people's feelings and
causes social unrest."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20041212/ai_n12764592
regardsMilan wrote:
Milan
<louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185889422.420509.196360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Einar wrote:
I understand perfectly his orbiting teapot comparison, meaning that it
is possible to conceive of a real lot of things that can not be
refuted easilly by science, why choosing one such over another?
One can also point out that, no theory about what exchists or does not
exchist beyond this universe, can be scientifically proven or refuted
by science, which does not stop people to create all kinds of theories
about just that. In addition there is the fact that no information can
get to us humans faster than the speed of light, which means that
everything we know about the universe is an old information which may
be obsolete. At the very least there is no way to make sure of that.
It's actually very simple.
Historically, saying "this is a religious belief" gives an idea a free
pass from having to have proof. Or having to make sense. For one
thing, for most of human history, people would kill you for asking for
proof or internal logic in the local dominant religious ideas.
If you say "there is a herd of antelope other side of that hill,"
someone will go look. If there isn't one, they'll want you to stop
saying there is. If you say "I live in a house which is completely
round and _at the same time_ completely square," people will say WTF
and call you crazy. These rules of being true and making sense are
pretty much universally accepted for real-world, non-religious
statements.
But you can make parallel statements on religious matters and no one
is supposed to complain. "This book is completely true and accurate
because _it says so in its own text_, and any facts that contradict it
are evil and wrong." "This piece of bread is now really and actually
the flesh and blood of a god _without changing in any testable way_."
Dawkins makes people mad because he verbally and publicly applies real-
world standards of truth and falsity to religious matters. If I say
that my son's favorite toy talks to him and gives him guidance _in
ways no one can ever prove_, you call me crazy. If I say that an
invisible Deity talks to me and guides me _in ways no one can ever
prove_, Dawkins calls me crazy on exactly the same grounds and demands
the same level of proof from the talking God that he would from the
talking toy.
Moderate believers (and many nonbelievers) say "It's rude and unfair
to hold Religious Ideas(tm) to ordinary standards of proof. You
mustn't do it, unless it's something immediate and serious like 'God
wants me to mutilate my kids,' because it hurts people's feelings and
causes social unrest."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20041212/ai_n12764592
regards
Milan
Read it, saw only the conventional "religion is nonreason" which is a
dearly held believe by a number of people, and the so called "brights
movement" champions such a stance.
you forgot to actually refute it.
Einar
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Mutually exclusive faiths: Creation vs Evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: I respect Dawkins as a biologists though I don´t agree with his views on religion.
- Next by thread: Re: I respect Dawkins as a biologists though I don´t agree with his views on religion.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
