Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

by KateWild 85 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Qcmbr

  Kate - please describe how faith / religion investigates truth? My opening statement should inform you that I accept that religion can co-exist with a scientific viewpoint.

  Inspiration to perform scientific study is great. Scientific study is not religious - it is a methodology - though it can study the religious (and the atheist for that matter). It involves no prayer nor worship and invokes no deity.

  Dawkins certainly seems driven to explain himself over and over again because so many ill informed and faith based thinkers continually try and denigrate the knowledge that is staring them in the face. Sometimes the religios need to shut up and admit they haven't done the research necessary to discuss the topics but at every debate you'll always have some zealot thinking or asking some astonishingly poor questions born of bible / dogma based information (written thousands of years ago by uneducated people!) rather than listening to an expert in the field.

  I cannot think of one useful scientific discovery given by the gods of the believers (loads of rules for controlling sex,eating food and giving money to priests though).
• 

  konceptual99

  There will always be scientists with faith (of what ever type) who are moved by what they see around them to seek to find an understanding. The question is how many of these have enough intellectual honesty to continually accept discoveries that simply reinforces the body of evidence that requires no divine intervention without at some point having to compromise their beliefs?

  There are a bunch of (IMHO psuedo) scientists and lobbyists who try and use scientific language to discredit the mainstream and actively promote a controversial world view. They might feel they are seeking the truth but what they are really doing is simply trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

  The problem Dawkins has with this is that he sees these people carrying significant weight and influence, especially in the American education system. He views ID as unscientific and not worthy of being considered as a valid alternative to the broad theory of evolution. His arguments about religion are geared towards those that might be happy to settle for a compromise.

  When I was firmly "in" I used to think he was a fanatical zealot with no respect for anyones' faith. Now that I've read most of his work along with several other key texts on evolution I think he is a great writer. I think that sometimes he still over eggs the anti-religious pudding but I can seperate that from his documentation of science.
• 

  Etude

  tec:

  "There is zero hypocrisy in anything that I have stated. Your opinion is that I have contempt for science... but I don't. Never have. Just because I recognize the limitations of science, and know that it is not the end-all/know-all... does not mean I hold it in contempt, in the least"

  You are so right. I'm getting the feeling that there's a contingent of people who reactionarily take an opposing stand to what someone says if that is the slightest criticism of science. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that science by definition is set up for scrutiny. I don't understand how a criticism of science ends up as contempt. It's a kind of bizarro zeal.
• 

  Qcmbr

  You have to earn the right to critique science, anything else is preaching your prejudice.
• 

  cofty

  Etude - Tammy rejects basic facts of science because of her religion. She pretends that Jesus talks to her and tells her specific things that science is wrong about. Included in this list is the simple fact that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.

  She uses the disingenuous defense that because science doesn't know everything then anything can be blithely rejected.

  Before you agree with somebody you should know what nonsense you are agreeing with.
• 

  KateWild

  Kate - please describe how faith / religion investigates truth? Qcmbr

  For me my faith leads me to investigate science. How so? I learned a little about sub-atomic particles and how they work. I am in awe of what I have already learned. I dont understand Shrodingers Wave equation, but because of how complex and wounderful sub-atomic particles are, I want to understand particle physics better, I feel it draws me closer to God as a creator and that is my motive to investigate science.

  I want to draw away from talking in terms of false and true, learning more about a topic that interests me is my goal.

  Kate xx
• 

  cofty

  I want to draw away from talking in terms of false and true

  Really?

  Are you SBF in disguise?
• 

  Qcmbr

  So without faith you wouldn't have any interest in science? Wow. This is similar to the idea that morality only has meaning when its caused by a divine force. I suspect if you dropped God out of your equation you might surprise yourself and still have a great desire to see how the universe works (and by drop God I don't mean your belief in that being just as the motivation - trust yourself.)
• 

  KateWild

  I think that sometimes he still over eggs the anti-religious pudding but I can seperate that from his documentation of science.-K99

  I do agree, and I am also trying to overlook this and imitate you example K99, I feel validated you understand my perspective. It's easier to press on when posters don't pretened that there is no elephant in the room as it were. - Kate xx
• 

  tec

  over eggs the anti-religious pudding

  That was an awesome metaphor.

  You are so right. I'm getting the feeling that there's a contingent of people who reactionarily take an opposing stand to what someone says if that is the slightest criticism of science. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that science by definition is set up for scrutiny. I don't understand how a criticism of science ends up as contempt. It's a kind of bizarro zeal.

  It is bizarro. It is like science is the new toy (after faith and religion... or perhaps the new 'god') and some just don't want to share. "feel about science the way I feel about science - live by it the way I live by it - else you are holding it in contempt, and you don't deserve to play with my new toy."

  Contempt: the feeling that a person or thing is worthless or deserving scorn.

  Contempt is how some feel about faith. Even how some feel about some people of faith.

  But contempt is not even remotely close to anything that I feel about science. I also don't feel contempt toward Dawkins. Or any of the new militant 'anti-theists'.

  Contempt is a pretty strong word.

  (And I could take the bait up there about the twisting that Cofty does regarding my faith... but then he would complain that I have derailed the thread and that I have brought up how Christ is alive and does speak; even though, as usual, it is Cofty who does this, himself.)

  Peace,

  tammy