Many, if not most Christians accept scientific knowledge as fact. Many of us are "old earth Christians" who accept the current estimates on the age of the earth and the universe. Science and theology rarely clash, in fact, surveys show that most scientists believe in God.
The problem with Dawkin's is that although he is a brilliant scientist, when he talks about the existence of God he is speaking philosophically or theologically, not scientifically.
Philosophy and theology are similar in that they follow the same rules of logic and reason. The scientific method is quite different, it follows rules of observation, control, and repeatability. The scientific method cannot be applied to purely philosophical and theological arguments.
Dawkin's and his followers use philosophical arguments with scientific language to attack theological arguments. People may believe they are using the scientific method when talking about God, but they is not. It is philosophical.
For example, here is a quote from an earlier posting by Murphy Murph:
"A theory which has no proof, can not be proven, and describes a reality counter to all observations (see Dawkin's arguments regarding complexity) should be rejected, not as "of yet unproven", but as ridiculous."
There are two problems with this statement. 1) It assumes the scientific method applies a theological argument. 2) The statement itself is a philosophical argument. The truth or falsehood of the statement itself cannot be proven. Therefore, if the statement is true it must be "rejected" and classified as a "ridiculous". (Of course, this apparent paradox demonstrates the problem of attempting to apply the scientific method of proof to a philosophical statement.)
One more comment: Dawkin's uses the old "straw man" technique. He claims that all religions are scientific theories and then tears them apart for not being very scientific. I do not know of any theologian who would claim that religion is science. It is an indication of how little Dawkin's knows on the subject of religion. (He actually stated that he never studied it because their is nothing to know about it.) That's fine, but he should not present himself as an authority on a subject he knows very little about.
Slashdot Mirror
Many, if not most Christians accept scientific knowledge as fact. Many of us are "old earth Christians" who accept the current estimates on the age of the earth and the universe. Science and theology rarely clash, in fact, surveys show that most scientists believe in God.
The problem with Dawkin's is that although he is a brilliant scientist, when he talks about the existence of God he is speaking philosophically or theologically, not scientifically.
Philosophy and theology are similar in that they follow the same rules of logic and reason. The scientific method is quite different, it follows rules of observation, control, and repeatability. The scientific method cannot be applied to purely philosophical and theological arguments.
Dawkin's and his followers use philosophical arguments with scientific language to attack theological arguments. People may believe they are using the scientific method when talking about God, but they is not. It is philosophical.
For example, here is a quote from an earlier posting by Murphy Murph:
"A theory which has no proof, can not be proven, and describes a reality counter to all observations (see Dawkin's arguments regarding complexity) should be rejected, not as "of yet unproven", but as ridiculous."
There are two problems with this statement.
1) It assumes the scientific method applies a theological argument.
2) The statement itself is a philosophical argument. The truth or falsehood of the statement itself cannot be proven. Therefore, if the statement is true it must be "rejected" and classified as a "ridiculous". (Of course, this apparent paradox demonstrates the problem of attempting to apply the scientific method of proof to a philosophical statement.)
One more comment: Dawkin's uses the old "straw man" technique. He claims that all religions are scientific theories and then tears them apart for not being very scientific. I do not know of any theologian who would claim that religion is science. It is an indication of how little Dawkin's knows on the subject of religion. (He actually stated that he never studied it because their is nothing to know about it.) That's fine, but he should not present himself as an authority on a subject he knows very little about.
I agree. Why else would the resolution be so bad. It looks like something I used to get from my Commodore Vic20 plugged into a black and white TV.