Against whom do you propose to “defend” Dawkins’ right to express opinions? Dawkins’ right to express opinions has not been an issue with me. Again, we witness smoke making (great billowing clouds). This old naval tactic is very popular with politicians whenever they encounter any topic with which they lack the stomach to deal, which is as sure an indication as can be found, that issue is entirely about political domination, and has nothing to do with protecting the precious sanctity of scientific purity.
“For the obvious reason that we don't get a lot of "Obamatrons" posting here”
Oh, so you do agree with me that most posts pretending to represent Science, or to defend Darwinism, are pointless and in violation of Science principles.
“When a scientist speaks of his/her religious or metaphysical opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".”
The crux of the matter, and one I’ve held from the beginning, and the point you’ve attempted right along to obfuscate with much smoke making . . . great billowing clouds.
Now you say that you don’t have occasion, poor fellow, to deliver your opinion to Dawkins and his many acolytes, because you just don’t run in their circle, and post only in FR. There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR who assail his FR critics by directing everyone’s attention to the myriad Science heresies he commits when he directs his poisonous tongue to Judeo-Christians. So why don’t you? The strongest sentiments against Dawkins &co you’ve delivered, of which I am aware, have been here in this present thread in your agreement with me.
“Aquinas never addressed the question: what if science appears to tell us something in conflict with the Bible?”
What?! The quotes I provided from T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7, address that very point. That should be obvious, but I suppose the philosophy and religion of Aquinas cannot be read and understood if it is treated as though it is a lab report form a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
“Science has nothing whatever to do with certitude”
You don’t need to convince me. Indeed, you do admit (as you should) that many are paid by the Regime and that we should not be surprised at their politics. And, of course, I am not surprised; merely disgusted at how easily they prostitute themselves, and how lightly they regard liberty and the salvation of their souls.
My reference to Marx stems, of course, from the fact that he was a historian, economist, sociologist, journalist, and philosopher (nonsense - he was the Mid-Eighteenth Century version of a community agitator), and was joyful to declare that the Theory of Evolution proved with scientific “certainty” that God never existed. And that is yet today the stance assumed by all Marxist acolytes (both public and closet). To all Socialist devotees and 0bamatrons (who seldom, if ever, even have a scientific or philosophic thought in their empty heads), the nonexistence of God is the one certain thing in an otherwise uncertain Universe; and it is Science that proves it. If this all this sounds rather psychotic, then understand it is nothing more than a view into the chaos of a Liberal’s mind, which is something akin to a view into an used baby diaper.
Since you seem to understand that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?
“glaring Scientific heresy" refers to what, exactly?”
Heavens to Murgatroid! Of what have I been speaking almost incessantly on this thread if not the dishonesty of Scientists (and others) who present their opinions authoritatively, as though they are making factual statements about Science?
“so far as I can tell, that is not true of anything to do with evolution theory.”
Really?! From Marx to the present, it has ben the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead.
Your words, "smoke making great billowing clouds" rather precisely describes your own postings here, which I have been carefully trying to cut through to find some core of argument worthy of response.
You may appreciate how difficult that is... ;-).
YHAOS: "Oh, so you do agree with me that most posts pretending to represent Science, or to defend Darwinism, are pointless and in violation of Science principles."
And again we see the "great billowing clouds" this time hoping to blow their way between my very words!
So let us begin with the fact that nobody I've ever seen on Free Republic defends Dawkins' religious opinions, except in his right to express them.
YHAOS: "The crux of the matter, and one I’ve held from the beginning, and the point you’ve attempted right along to obfuscate with much smoke making . . . great billowing clouds."
Sorry, but the "great billowing clouds" were your hors d'oeuvres, your entree and now, it appears, also your dessert.
Really, is there nothing else on your menu?
Nothing I've said is difficult to grasp, except for someone determined to misunderstand.
My point boils down to one simple idea: the word "science" refers only to: natural explanations for natural processes.
As soon as YHAOS or Dawkins or anybody else starts talking religion, it's not "science" any more.
YHAOS: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR who assail his FR critics by directing everyone’s attention to the myriad Science heresies he commits when he directs his poisonous tongue to Judeo-Christians.
So why don’t you?
In fact, there are no such "fans" posting of Free Republic, except in the projections of your own rather fertile imagination.
The most anybody here will do is just what I've done: defend Dawkins' right to express opinions, scientific or otherwise.
YHAOS: "The quotes I provided from T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7, address that very point."
Sorry, but no.
Anything I've read from Aquinas assumes or asserts that religion and natural-science must be in harmony.
So far as I know, Aquinas never addressed questions later raised by, for example, Galileo Galilee -- when findings or theories of science seem to contradict scripture.
YHAOS: "You don’t need to convince me."
Then our areas of agreement may be larger than some of those "great billowing clouds" might suggest... ;-)
By the way I like your whole paragraph on Marx, expecially this:
Of course, "science" by definition cannot "prove" any such thing.
YHAOS: "Since you seem to understand that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?"
Go back and reread my posts #41, #55 and #72 to see what they actually refer to.
YHAOS: "From Marx to the present, it has ben the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead."
Doubtless some do, but I've never seen that argument made by posters on Free Republic.