Whoaaaaa! take a dekko at this


#1

I don’t recall a moment, when I’ve been *more *amused:

The cerebrational offerings of Richard Dawkins…

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

A new Commandment, I give you. Live by…science!

The utter dreariness of it all…:nerd: The “box”!

While I cannot “prove” the existence of God…this…this ???
is the best -that can be offered- for an alternate ‘world
view’ in terms of “meaning.”

Riggghhhtttt…

Le plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose.

-The more things change, the more things remain the same. :smiley:

reen12


#2

Your link is broken.


#3

Yes, I noted same and have addressed this.

The link now “works”. :tiphat:

Readers of same are in for a “treat.” :smiley:

Best,

reen12


#4

Thanks for digging that up; I rather enjoyed reading it. This quote in particular touches on an issue I have with faith

[quote=Richard Dawkins]One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.
[/quote]

In discourse between two people who disagree, but who both accept reason, there can be discussion, and perhaps they’ll both learn something about the way the world works. But if the two people believe on faith, there’s nothing to discuss; there is no possibility for dialogue.

But that’s just me.


#5

quote: EnterTheBowser

In discourse between two people who disagree, but who both accept reason, there can be discussion, and perhaps they’ll both learn something about the way the world works. But if the two people believe on faith, there’s nothing to discuss; there is no possibility for dialogue.

I genuinely appreciate this statement of your view, in both
a clear and succint manner.

If by “reason” you mean: those areas of human
endeavor that are materially verifiable - scientism - then
I agree with the view that you have expressed, in the
quote, cited above. “creation” in a literal “7 days”…
I…don’t…think…so…in terms of dialog.]

-------> scientism:

answers.com/topic/scientism

If one holds that there is no such ‘reality’ as ‘revealed truth’ -
aka religious scriptures…then, no, there is no possibility
of fruitful dialogue [in my view]…for one of the participants
holds that the other bases his/her world -view on…fantasy.

“Elegant” fantasy - but fantasy, nonetheless. :tiphat:

A futile endeavor, I think, such dialog.

As I have stated, elsewhere, I hold that athiesm is not
an “illogical” position, even while not sharing that view.

But when a given athiest holds that what I hold - as
reflective of reality - is based on fantasy…what, exactly
is the point, in terms of ‘dialog’ ?

In terms of participating -however briefly - in another
thread - where the athiestic position is being discussed:

My endeavor was not to “challenge” the ‘logic’…but
to simply point out what the world would ‘look’ like,
if I were to accept the athiestic premise.

Hollow, empty…a ‘box.’ Not a pretty picture, I think,
no matter how Dawkins chooses to paint such a world.

Given athiests may protest my depiction - of such a world -
as solely my opinion, assessment…

Fair enough.

I invite individuals to take a good, longggg look at the
’offerings’ of Dawkins…his world-view.

Then to read the book of Psalms.

This is where the fruitful ‘dialog’ may take place, I hold.
Not between ‘believers’ and athiests - on a forum.
But, rather, in the mind heart and soul of a given*…reader*, who
will take the time to ‘assess’ these ‘world-views.’ :tiphat:

Dawkins and the Psalms:

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/intro.htm

And, I’ll say one thing, I do not believe in God because
such belief paints a prettier “picture.”

But because of an ‘inherent sense’ that same reflects
reality.

As I said, in the other thread:
I expect no one to hold aught, based on my 'inherent sense.'
Yet that ‘sense’ is there.

Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our G-d, the Lord is One.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael

Thanks for your thoughts, EnterTheBowser,

reen12


#6

[quote=EnterTheBowser]In discourse between two people who disagree, but who both accept reason, there can be discussion, and perhaps they’ll both learn something about the way the world works. But if the two people believe on faith, there’s nothing to discuss; there is no possibility for dialogue.

But that’s just me.
[/quote]

What if they believe due to faith and reason? What if one doesn’t believe faith and reason need be opposed? I think you assume a lot that you have yet to prove. Maybe you need to take a step or two back and start from the beginning. Socrates said there are two kinds of people. 1) A fool who believes he is a fool (this person is actually wise). 2) A fool who believes he is a wise person. The latter is actually a fool, because while the first guy knows how little he really knows and thus is humble, the other guy (who actually knows very little) thinks he knows a lot, and thus has intellectual pride. This does not allow him to turn to the Socratic method of questioning everything before proceeding. You seem to have very little understanding (from the posts I have read of you in a couple different threads) of what CATHOLICS believe. You seem to want to argue against the Fundamentalist Christian. Know your opponent. You are debating a straw man here.


#7

Faith and reason are two fairly different epistemologies. Now, if theism is true, then it is expectable that properly applied, they will both yield the same, or at least consistent, conclusions (if theism is false then there might be a problem).

The issue that I brought up was that it is possible for someone else to correct mistaken reasoning. For example, I might say “X is true.” Someone else might respond, “Well, actually, you might want to consider Y.” And I might, in fact, realize the error in my reasoning. But what can you say to someone who knows X by faith? If I have faith that Z (instead of X), what sort of things could we say to each other to convince the other that they were mistaken in their belief? (Presumably individuals can be mistaken in matters of faith)


#8

[quote=EnterTheBowser]Faith and reason are two fairly different epistemologies. Now, if theism is true, then it is expectable that properly applied, they will both yield the same, or at least consistent, conclusions (if theism is false then there might be a problem).

The issue that I brought up was that it is possible for someone else to correct mistaken reasoning. For example, I might say “X is true.” Someone else might respond, “Well, actually, you might want to consider Y.” And I might, in fact, realize the error in my reasoning. But what can you say to someone who knows X by faith? If I have faith that Z (instead of X), what sort of things could we say to each other to convince the other that they were mistaken in their belief? (Presumably individuals can be mistaken in matters of faith)
[/quote]

Sure. I don’t disagree with that. I misunderstood your what you were implying. However, my faith is based on reason. I didn’t start off believing in the RCC and then figure out a good argument for why. I started as an agnostic, and let philosophy take me to belief in one God. From there, I believed that Jesus was the next logical step. From there, I realized that I must be Catholic if I was going to be Christian. For me, it was a logical progression, so I always take care to make sure that other’s understand that one need not reject reason to have faith. In fact, everyone has faith in something. Whereas the theist must ask the question: what if there is not?, the atheist must ask the question: what if there is? Either way we must have faith in what is not seen. I believe my faith is superior because, not only is it based on reason and rationale, but it also allows for hope. This is something that is not logically consistent for someone who believes we are created by nothing, for nothing, and therefore life is meaningless.


#9

quote: Redbandito

What if they believe due to faith and reason? What if one doesn’t believe faith and reason need be opposed?

I can’t stress the following sufficiently enough:

*To say that belief in a deity is not “illogical” is not to say that *
same is “proveable.”

Something may not be “un-reasonable” yet same may be
"un-proveable." via the scientific method…read Dawkins!]
---------> scientism.

answers.com/topic/scientism


The following premise is utterly rejected as a 'reality’:
There is a reality called ‘revealed truth.’

I might as well be reading from Alice in Wonderland -
and calling* that* ‘scripture’ ! - from the point of view of
a-theism [in terms of “acceptable” argumentation.]

quote: EnterTheBowser

In discourse between two people who disagree, but who both accept reason, there can be discussion, and perhaps they’ll both learn something about the way the world works. But if the two people believe on faith, there’s nothing to discuss; there is no possibility for dialogue.

Here, IMO, the definition of “reason” means: no claim to
’reality’ will be ceded, unless the phenomenon under
’discussion’ is capable of being materially verified - i.e. scientism.

Once I came to understand that, for some who hold this position,
there is no appreciable difference between the beliefs held -
by those who hold with animism - and the beliefs explicated by Aquinas !
…I finally understood what I was looking at…scientism.

If you can’t weigh it, measure it, etc. then “it” doesn’t 'exist,'
in ‘reality.’

We are not talking about the ‘claims’ of one denomination,
rebutted by rational argument, proof-texts and so on, for
in that case, the premise is ceded: there is a reality called
’revealed truth.'
In the view of a-theism,* No* reality is ceded to revelation…period.

Yes, I may claim that a belief in an intelligent Agency is
not “illogical” [based on ‘complexity’].
But this kind of ‘rational argument’ will never get me to
a personal God - which 'belief ’ is based on revelation.

If beliefs -based on scripture- are evaluated as fantasy,
then the idea of ‘rational’ engagement with a ‘believer’ -
for one who holds this view - is considered an impossibility.

*Read *what was written:

EnterTheBowser

In discourse between two people who disagree, but who both accept reason, there can be discussion, and perhaps they’ll both learn something about the way the world works. But if the two people believe on faith, there’s nothing to discuss; there is no possibility for dialogue.

Note: “…no possibility for dialogue.”

One way of viewing this position, I think, is to view same as:

If you’re going to insist on proferring ‘arguments’ based on
readings from Alice in Wonderland [aka ‘scripture’]…i.e. ‘revealed truth’…

Also note the phrase:

quote: EnterTheBowser

“…about the way the world works.”

Ahhhhh, yes. The ‘here and now’…*physical *reality!..
not "pie in the sky.'
The “real” world. :slight_smile:

As I say, read Dawkins, then read the book of Psalms.

reen12 :tiphat:


#10

P.S.

Dawkins emphasizes - in his speech, “Is Science A Religion?”-
his “passionate” embrace of evolution.

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

I hold that - within 25 years - the theory of evolution will
be accorded the same respect that is now accorded…Freud.

Hats off to Freud :tiphat: for the theory of the "unconscious."
That, I think, was his one, solid, enduring contribution to the field.

Yet…

As brain imaging and brain chemistry have taken center stage,
the “theories” of Freud are viewed -by many, in the scientific
community, as…quaint. :smiley:

As “hard” science goes forward, [unimpeded by the cherished ‘theories’ of the day] “passionate” embrace!..
it’ll be “bye-bye” to…evolution…

…IMO, of course. :nerd:

reen12


#11

Is there any reason for that opinion?


#12

[quote=reen12]P.S.

I hold that - within 25 years - the theory of evolution will
be accorded the same respect that is now accorded…Freud.

As “hard” science goes forward, [unimpeded by the cherished
[/quote]

‘theories’ of the day] “passionate” embrace!..
it’ll be “bye-bye” to…evolution…

…IMO, of course. :nerd:

reen12

To be replaced by what?

I hold that - people should be well versed on a topic BEFORE they attempt to argue against it. If not, then their opinions are invalid on the topic, based as they are on ignorance and wistfullness.

Hard science goes forward facilitated by hard evidence and fact. It is not “impeaded” by it.

Oh, and BTW, what in the heck is a “dekko”?


#13

Religion is a means by which we are supposed to get a better understanding about how God created the world and universe we live in. Rather, it is not meant to be a tool to contradict the glory and majesty of his creation. To put our faith in science is to deny God of his rightful glory, and we, as humans, are in no position to do that.


#14

[quote=ChiRho79]Religion is a means by which we are supposed to get a better understanding about how God created the world and universe we live in. Rather, it is not meant to be a tool to contradict the glory and majesty of his creation. To put our faith in science is to deny God of his rightful glory, and we, as humans, are in no position to do that.
[/quote]

So you advocate for prayer over medicine?
You advocate for prayer and contemplation over engineering?


#15

quote:EnterTheBowser

Is there any reason for that opinion?

The fossil record.

If you have an interest in “debating” evolution, there are
plenty of ‘evolution’ threads, available…where those -
who have a ‘lively’ interest in the topic - will be happy to
engage on same.
In terms of evolution/faith, this is not a hot-button issue. :tiphat:

It will matter not at all, to me - in terms of 'belief '- when this “theory” is quietly dismissed…

I figured, as a young woman - forty years ago - that
evolution was fairly likely to be borne out. I saw -and see-
no “conflict” in terms of religious belief.]

But it is the fervor! -with which this theory is clung too -
and the lack of fossil evidence…that has made me far
less sanguine - in terms of holding this ‘theory’ as likely
redolent of ‘fact.’

Best,

reen12


#16

Dawkins wrote:

Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence

But faith is certainly man’s response to evidence. Faith comes from Latin *fides; *akin to Latin *fidere *to trust. One has faith in another normally based upon the evidence of their trustworthiness.

Thus, faith is “the conviction (Gk *elegchos *Latin argumentum) of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). I’ve never seen Dawkins’ brain, but I trust he has one. :smiley:

God reveals himself naturally and supernaturally. This is real evidence. Man’s response to that evidence is faith.

Thus, I reject Dawkin’s definition of the word “faith.”


#17

Dawkin’s wrote:

Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith.

Yet, Harold Urey, who won the Nobel Prize in 1934, wrote:“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It’s just that its complexity is so great, that it’s hard for us to imagine that it did” (Christian Science Monitor, Jan 4, 1962, pg. 4)

Hmmmmm…:hmmm: Science is free from faith huh? Balderdash!


#18

[quote=Charles Darwin]But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
[/quote]

On the Imperfection of the Geological Record


#19

quote: coyote

Hard science goes forward facilitated by hard evidence and fact. It is not “impeaded” by it.

Oh, really? When a theory is clutched tightly------->Dawkins:
[and his “passionate” embrace of evolution…]

…then that very…uh…‘enthusiasm’ may impede clear-sightedness. [aka “hard” science]

And, BTW, before I switched to Philosophy, I took a gander
at micro-quantitative analysis, micro-qualitative analysis,
physics, calculus and organic chemistry. :smiley:

Tell me more about:

quote: coyote

…ignorance and wistfullness.

And, if you’ll take the time to re-read what I wrote:

quote: reen12

As “hard” science goes forward, unimpeded by the cherished ‘theories’ of the day]…[emphasis, mine]

you’ll see why I entertain a certain confusion - in terms of
understanding your point - with reference to my own:

quote: coyote

Hard science goes forward facilitated by hard evidence and fact. It is not “impeaded” by it

.

My point was: ‘unimpeded’ by ‘cherished theories’…not 'impeded
by the scientific method! :smiley:

“dekko” is British slang for: “a glance” ]

Best, :tiphat:

reen12


#20

Blah, blah, blah.

Support your assertion that Evolution will be a non-entity in 25 years. How, why?

Your supposition is untenable bupkiss.

Philosophy is not science. Philosophers have no business trespassing self indulgent opinions on the validity of scientific method.

Oh, and BTW, you still have not clarified what a “dekko” is.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.