“that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)”
For which I am to blame because . . . ? Or, are you indulging in the typical 3rd grade logic that, “Everyone else is doing it” (pout, sniffle)?
“First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term . . . ”
Creating sidetracks to send me galloping down. Old naval tactic; when out-gunned make much smoke; great billowing clouds. The term “Science,” as it is modernly applied and understood, did not come into use until the late 17th and early 18th Centuries. Its roots, of course, can be traced back, at least, to the time of Aristotle and Plato. But I will agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest:
“Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”
And again,
“. . . no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.”
. . . . . T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7
Science, I think, is always an effort to explain 'reality' without reference to a Creator (even by scientists who, after some fashion or another, believe in a Creator), creating a kind of certainty that generates, in turn, a very comforting security (which I must assume is the generating motive behind the effort).
“. . . liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking “scientifically”.”
I think that’s correct. But I also note that they and Scientists, particularly of an Atheist persuasion, misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally. It is to this that I object. And, when Liberals and their science lackeys are called on their deceit, their howls of anger and anguish are a dead giveaway that their distress is directed against those who give prominence to their duplicitous guile, and not to their so obvious intellectual failure.
“Don't blame “science” or “Darwinism” for liberal political agendas.”
Oh, but I do. Not for dreaming up the strategy, but for the passivity with which the Liberal agenda has be allowed to hijack Science. It’s not as though it‘s only in the past year that Liberals have been pirating Science, especially Evolution (Darwinism). It began with Marx 165 years ago (some would argue a much earlier date, but let's go with Marx and 1848), so Scientists have had ample indication of what was in store for them. Their behavior would indicate that many actually welcomed the Liberal agenda’s assault on and occupation of Science for its own purposes.
“I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?”
You shouldn’t. Or, at least you needn’t. However, being an avid reader of FR posts, you must be keenly aware that many posts of glaring Scientific heresy have appeared on FR threads. So my question, Has anyone on his (Dawkins’) side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientific valid? remains unanswered.
“They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.”
Whom is this “they” Pilgrim? If you mean moi, then again you misrepresent my opinion (with malice, I must think). It is scientists like Dawkins who represent their “opinions” (as you choose to call them) as scientific “fact.” I insist the opinions are not scientific facts and you choose to attack me rather than Dawkins.
No, go back and re-read the original exchange.
Your complaint was that "Obamatrons do not rise above the pyramid's 4th level...", to which I responded, "Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right?"
For the obvious reason that we don't get a lot of "Obamatrons" posting here, and the rest of us generally try our best to be civil, even under the most trying circumstances.
Point is: your complaint seems a little out of touch with what's actually happening here.
YHAOS: "Creating sidetracks to send me galloping down. Old naval tactic; when out-gunned make much smoke; great billowing clouds."
Not at all, just thought it important to be certain we understand certain word definitions.
For something to be "scientific" it must meet certain criteria, especially: natural explanations for natural processes.
When a scientist speaks of his/her religious or metaphysical opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".
YHAOS quoting Aquinas: "Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason."
Thanks for that excellent quote.
It makes my point that a study of alleged conflicts between religion and science should begin with Aquinas, since he believed the two are in harmony and compliment each other.
So far as I know, Aquinas never addressed the question: what if science appears to tell us something in conflict with the Bible?
But that is the question since at least the Renaissance and Galileo.
YHAOS: "Science, I think, is always an effort to explain 'reality' without reference to a Creator (even by scientists who, after some fashion or another, believe in a Creator), creating a kind of certainty that generates, in turn, a very comforting security (which I must assume is the generating motive behind the effort)."
Yes, from the time of Aquinas, "science" (aka "natural-science" & "natural-philosophy") is precisely that effort to search out natural explanations for natural processes.
Any other explanations are not, by definition, "scientific".
And indeed, it has nothing whatever to do with certitude, just the opposite.
Nothing in science is ontologically certain.
No theory (outside mathematics) is ever "proved".
Every hypothesis is "confirmed" only by failures to disprove it.
Every theory is only accepted as "confirmed" until some future test succeeds in disproving it.
So science is the opposite of certainty.
Science is all about "question everything", and the questioning on one subject only ends when people grow tired and move on to something else.
YHAOS: "But I also note that they and Scientists, particularly of an Atheist persuasion, misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally.
It is to this that I object."
Of course, you need all the same skepticism you'd bring to a used car lot in listening to their sales pitches.
And by that, I don't mean to insult used car salesmen!
YHAOS: "It’s not as though it‘s only in the past year that Liberals have been pirating Science, especially Evolution (Darwinism).
It began with Marx 165 years ago..."
Of course, since science is generally morally "neutral", anybody can pirate it, and many have.
And I couldn't say who's done more harm with it -- the international socialists, the national socialists, the democrat socialists or now the Muslim terror socialists.
Unfortunately, scientists like anyone else know who signs their pay-checks, and take care to protect them.
Since many are paid by government, we might not be so surprised at their politics.
And in the particular case of, say, "global warming" we can see how political influence corrupted a scientific process.
But so far as I can tell, that is not true of anything to do with evolution theory.
YHAOS: "...being an avid reader of FR posts, you must be keenly aware that many posts of glaring Scientific heresy have appeared on FR threads."
"glaring Scientific heresy" refers to what, exactly?
YHAOS: "I insist the opinions are not scientific facts and you choose to attack me rather than Dawkins."
You are mistaken if you think I defend anything about Dawkins except his right to express opinions on whatever he wishes.
If people like YHAOS misinterpret those opinions as somehow authoritatively scientific, then I'm here to tell you: you'll need a raincoat and galoshes to wade out in that... ah, mess.