Posted on 04/24/2008 11:04:16 PM PDT by RussP
I’m no Dawkins lover my any stretch, but let me just play “devil’s advocate” here.
I don’t think Dawkins is claiming that science “disproves” the existence of God. I think he is merely saying that science renders the “hypothesis” of God unnecessary, and he *chooses* not to believe it. That my impression of his position, anyway.
Morality exists and is generally accepted by our culture. I don't see HOW it came to be changes how things are.
Science depends on accurate definitions. To directly respond, I would need to know your definition of good and better. Scientists are people and subject to their cultursl memes. They think alive is better than dead, comfort is better than pain, and kindness is better than cruelty. Darwin was a kind man. Dawkins is obnoxious, but he probably loves his kids.
Actually, I pretty much agree with you there in general terms. However, the horrific crimes justified by Darwinism are far larger in magnitude and are much more recent than any such crimes that were ever justified by Christianity. Had Christianity been used to justify anything like what the Nazis or communists did, and as recently as they did it, the “secular progressives” would be screaming to the rooftops about it — and using it to denounce Christianity — not trying to downplay it. It’s a double standard on their part.
That is an unsupported assumption
I see that point, but how it came to be is either true or not. And, in all things we should seek truth.
How things came to be is also part of the things themself. It involve meaning and value. If these exist, if they are real, if we can know them, how we can know them... Seeking to know this is what makes us human. This search for truth.
In this search we use different tools. Empirical scientific tools, logic/reason tools, religious tools. If we are to expand knowledge of reality, we have to be thoroughly versed in the uses and limits of each tool. When and where and how to apply them; and what knowledge can and cannot be obtained by each.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but science doesn’t accept that anything exists without evidence. If it did, EVERYTHING would exist scientifically. Science doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist, just that evidence for the existance of God doesn’t exist.
I was just giving you the Christian explanation for the existence evil. I wasn’t claiming it is a scientific explanation.
But are you suggesting that we have no free will? If that’s true, then how can morality even exist in any meaningful way?
Very well said!
No result is favored - it couldn't be, else it isn't objective science. No molecule is better than another, no force is better than another, etc, etc...
The values of scientists are another thing - I emphasize "another" thing.
Scientists are people and subject to their cultursl memes
I wasn't clear. I was speaking of "science" not scientists. In science, purely from the scientific point of view if Cause A results in death or Cause A results in life, it is the same: Cause A results in what it results in.
No result is favored - it couldn't be, else it isn't objective science. No molecule is better than another, no force is better than another, etc, etc...
The values of scientists are another thing - I emphasize "another" thing.
Not quite. Science can only speak to those things in reality which have size, quantity, simple location that can be detected by the senses, and their extensions.
It has limited itself to the firmest aspect of knowledge. But it most certainly does not say that only that which meets this criteria exists.
In other words, you cannot say only that which science can see exists. You likely see the huge illogical hole this falls into.
evidence for the existance of God doesn’t exist
And those like Dawkins who claim this as proof God does not exist are really stepping in it. It's ok to say there's no scientific evidence for God. Actually by definition any God that can be proved by science is not God. It's this inference up from science to religion that is the category, and severe logical error.
I don't know if we have free will or not. There are philosophical,scientific, and religious reasons why we may not, however. Philosophically, if we a are rational beings, then presented with the exact same choice under the exact same circumstances, we will always make the exact same rational decision. Scientifically, it can be suggested that all life flows from an initial asymetry and everything else is just a string of causes and effects. The most interesting argument, however, is Biblical. there are a number of passages in the Bible saying that God knows the future. If God knows what will happen at each stage of your life before it happens with absolute granularity, then you have to behave in such a way to make it happen without room for deviation. Absolute knowlege of the future precludes free will.
Perhaps so. I'm debating what Soliton says is Dawkins reason. I'm not going to hold him to it, but more debating what his views are I think. Thanks for the clarification.
Science is a methodology for determining objective truth. If you define “good” scientifically, it can be used to determine if something is good or not.
What would be the scientific evidence that Truth exists? The scientific evidence that Good exists? The scientific evidence that Beauty exists?
No offense, but you have just produced a pretty good definition of what it means to exist. Is there an alternate definition you would like to use for God?
By definition, God does not have simple location, quantity or size and cannot be detected by the senses.
Define "life" and plese explain the problems to which you allude
This is a common agreement among theologians of all major religions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.